|
--For
immediate release –
Washington
DC, March 24th 2006
KMT
Chairman Ma Ying-jeou in Washington: unreal, unclear and
unacceptable
The visit of
KMT Chairman and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou to Washington DC
on March 22nd and 23rd 2006 raised
more questions than that it brought answers.
The main
theme of his presentation at the various think-tanks was
that he could forge a peace agreement with China for
30/40/50 years, and that he could pull this off because
"both sides" would work forward based on the so-called "1992
consensus". The key problem with this rosy scenario is that
China never accepted the KMT's version of "each side its own
interpretation" (of what " One China" means). In fact, it
recently became clear that the "1992 consensus" never
existed: KMT legislator Su Chi admitted that it was a
fabrication.
Mr.
Ma's proposal is thus unreal at several levels, but
mainly because it presupposes that the PRC will accept the
ROC as a sovereign entity -- an ROC to which Mr. Ma said he
proudly "pledged allegiance." China has consistently
rejected the ROC as a continuing political entity. The
proposal also looks very much like the old "interim
agreement" proposed by Prof. Kenneth Lieberthal, which has
been dismissed as unacceptable by both China and Taiwan.
Mr. Ma said
that he wanted to work towards "common vision" of peace
and prosperity between Taiwan and China. He said that
if the KMT comes to power, it will keep the five noes, and
affirm the status quo. Throughout his stay in DC, he never
discussed the fact that Taiwan's democratic transition was
driven by the DPP, and that the KMT -- as Taiwan's former
authoritarian regime -- had been responsible for the
island's unhappy, undemocratic past.
When asked
during the Brookings session and at the National Press Club
why it seemed that the Kuomintang was seeking reconciliation
with the undemocratic rulers in China when it was unable to
move towards reconciliation with the democratically-elected
DPP government in Taiwan, Mr. Ma was again evasive, and
started to talk about totally unrelated topics.
However, Mr.
Ma was most vulnerable when he started to discuss the KMT's
plans for the future: he said the five noes are too passive,
and that therefore he proposes the "five do's": 1) resume
talks between two sides, 2) work towards a peace accord in
which both sides agree neither move towards independence or
unification for 50 years. 3) Have Military Confidence
Building Measures, 4) try to achieve a modus vivendi
on Taiwan's participation in international organizations,
based on pragmatism (no specifics....), and 5) accelerate
cultural and educational exchanges, recognize degrees from
Chinese universities and accept Chinese students in Taiwan
universities.
FAPA
President C.T. Lee commented, saying that for the past six
years the DPP government has expressed its willingness to
sit down with the Chinese government, but that Beijing has
always insisted that Taiwan accept the "One China Principle"
as defined by Beijing. As this would violate the
sovereignty of Taiwan as a free and democratic nation, the
DPP government has refused. Mr. Ma said nothing about
whether he would accept Beijing 's "One China" definition.
Mr. Ma's
plans were also criticized by think-tank scholars at the
American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation,
who said that Ma's plans seem to draw Taiwan into a Chinese
sphere of influence, and that this would be detrimental to
US strategic interests in East Asia.
On another
important issue on the table – the KMT's blockage of the
special budget for the arms package approved by President
Bush in 2001 -- Mr. Ma tried to play a partisan game by
blaming the DPP government, while neglecting to mention that
it was the KMT caucus in the Legislative Yuan that blocked
the budget proposal for 47 times during the past two years,
preventing it from even being placed on the agenda of the
legislature for any discussion. He also did not mention
that the arms package was defined in the late 1990s, when
the KMT was still in power.
In response
by a direct question on the issue by former DOD
and National Security Council official Kurt Campbell at a
meeting at Brookings, Mr. Ma remained characteristically
vague, only saying that the KMT supported a "reasonable arms
package", but adding that this depended on a) Taiwan's
defense needs, b) the Cross Strait situation, c) the
financial picture, and d) public opinion. In other
words: just some generalities and no commitment.
Mr. Ma also
said he opposed the purchase of PAC-3 missile defense system
on the basis of the logic that it "failed" in the March 2004
referendum (it actually received an overwhelming support --
some 90% -- of those who voted, but didn't receive the
required 50% of eligible voters - as is
required for a referendum), but at the same time he does
support Cross-Strait Dialogue, which was the topic of the
second clause of exactly the same Referendum.
For further
information, contact: Iris Ho or Gerrit van der Wees at
(202) 547-3686
|
