Taiwan: Just A Simple Question

Again and again, the president (?) of Taiwan praised his diplomatic truce and this time he was talking about Haiti (HERE):


President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on Tuesday touted his foreign policy, saying that the rescue efforts of Taipei and Beijing in Haiti were a perfect example that his strategy of “diplomatic truce” with Beijing worked.


Where did he say that?

In San Francisco.

His plane brought aid goods.

Where did it land in the first place in view to deliver the aid goods?

In the Dominican Republic.

Haiti is an diplomatic ally.

So why Ma did not land on Haiti land?

So, why did he need to give the aid goods to Haiti from the Dominican Republic?

Oh, let me guess…

China can decide about the U.N. troops in Haiti.

So the president (?) of Taiwan which is a diplomatic ally of Haiti cannot land in Haiti.

And he still repeat and repeat how beautiful and successful is his diplomatic truce.

China decides. Obviously, not Taiwan.

Yeah… Diplomatic truce… A joke?

If I missed something or misunderstood something, please, let me know.

So bad for Taiwan.



Mots clés Technorati : ,,,,,,

6 Responses

  1. One can argue about the quality of the Ma government, and above all, its will to defend the rule of law. One can argue about each step this government has taken in Taiwan’s relations with China. But the KMT deserves some credit, too. It has begun to reform and modernize Taiwan’s armed forces. All the bickering only makes sense if the opposition is as dedicated to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion as the KMT is. The pro-Taiwan blogosphere frequently sounds like if sovereignty was a matter of civil rights. That’s exactly what it is not, and I’m afraid the KMT understands this better than the opposition does.

  2. @justrecently
    Thanks for your comment.
    As far as I know, DPP never had legislative power and if my memory doesn’t fail me, KMT blocked the arm deal in the past.
    Beside, it doesn’t answer my “simple question” 😉

  3. First of all, president Ma is a bad salesman of his policies, and they’d be difficult to sell even if he was a great communicator. What many Taiwanese – as far as I can tell – fail to see is how narrow the range of choices for every Taiwanese government is. Understandably, neither Chen Shui-bian nor Ma Ying-jeou were or are keen on clearly stating how successful Beijing has been in limiting their options. Ma needs to convey the impression that he is in full control, and Chen used to act and talk like if he could lead Taiwan into independence – but he always stopped short of real action.
    I’d either blame both or neither big party in Taiwan for being fundamentally oppositional when out of government. Besides fundamental opposition (I’d prefer a loyal opposition in any country, including Taiwan), here were some very practical reasons for blocking the deal, too.
    One is that buying arms equipment is never as smart as to strengthen your own R&D in that field – and Taiwan has the capability / potential for such R&D.
    Another problem with the arms package in question is that it lacked (and still lacks) what Taiwan needs most: diesel-electric submarines. This has been an unresolved issue since the days of Lee Teng-hui, and the problem obviously lies outside Taiwan.
    Thirdly, I agree with the KMT that the DPP’s economic policies sucked. They were hardly visible as an issue. But without a strong economy, there will be no strong military.
    And let’s face it: Taiwan needs to be able to defend itself, with or without American support. This is no civil-rights issue. Whoever denies the government the will to defend Taiwan will only help to divide Taiwan’s society further. The DPP can’t demand loyal opposition from the KMT, when it is no loyal opposition itself.

  4. Why isn’t sovereignty a matter of civil rights??
    Yes, one can probably says that KMT tries to defend Taiwan against China 50 YEARS AGO but one can hardly see KMT is doing so???
    Haven’t one learned what Chinese government want already?

  5. I agree Annie, sovereignty is part of civil rights 🙂

  6. Civil rights are a matter between a government, elite, junta etc. and the people. If there is no agreement, there may be clashes between the population and the police, or (constitutionally or not) the military.
    But when sovereignty is threatened from outside, and there is no agreement between the aggressor and the attacked, sovereignty is something that needs to be fought for.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: