Last week, Costa Rica switched its diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China, leaving Taiwan with only 24 diplomatic allies. As a result, Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou took the current government to task:
"We had as many as 30 allies when the KMT was in power … It was clear that we made some progress diplomatically when we had a consensus with China … Chen’s foreign policy has lead Taiwan to a dead end," Ma said during a visit to Taipei Port in Bali Township (八里).
Chen’s foreign policy has led Taiwan to a dead end? An invitation if ever there was to take a closer look at where KMT foreign policy has led the beautiful isle:
During the time the KMT ruled Taiwan, how many net diplomatic allies did it lose? 80? 100? 130? On top of that, how many new U.N. member states were given the opportunity of recognizing Taiwan, and chose China instead? I can think of at least 15 – the old Soviet Union used to consist of 15 republics – and NONE of them recognized Taiwan when they gained their freedom. Come to think of it, neither did any of the newly-freed Eastern-bloc countries, either. All those potential allies up for grabs on the KMT’s watch – and the KMT let them slip right through their fingers.
So, back to the question: how many diplomatic allies, real and potential, did the KMT lose for Taiwan? I’ll guess 100 (and be grateful to anyone who can provide a more accurate number). That means that over 50 years, the KMT lost 2 diplomatic allies per year, on average. Does this record compare favorably to that of the Taiwanese nationalists?
I’m afraid it doesn’t. Under a Taiwanese nationalist president, Taiwan suffered a net loss of 6 diplomatic allies within a period of 7 years. Unless I’m mistaken, that works out to an average loss of 0.86 diplomatic allies per year. Nothing to brag about, to be sure, but it sure beats the KMT’s loss of 2 per year.* Which is to say nothing of the KMT’s loss of Taiwan’s security council seat, and their idiotic refusal to accept the consolation prize of a general assembly seat instead.
* In reply, supporters of the Chinese Nationalist Party might offer two defenses. The first, Ma Ying-jeou has already mentioned:
"It was clear that we made some progress diplomatically when we had a consensus with China."
OK, I’ll bite. Just how many new diplomatic allies did Taiwan pick up after it reached the mythical "One China, two interpretations" consensus in 1992? I wasn’t here, so I don’t know. Was it two? Three? Four? Undoubtedly, Ma would insist this was a result of goodwill from Beijing. But could he be suffering from a bad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc? In other words, might there be some OTHER possible explanation for the increase, besides some sort of imagined "goodwill" on the part of revanchist communists?
Well, let’s see…1992…That would be, what, THREE years after the Tienanmen Massacre? That was a time at which horrified American and European investors had ceased, or significantly slowed, their investment into the Middle Kingdom.
Wealthy Taiwanese industrialists had fewer scruples, however. They saw untapped opportunities in China that Americans and Europeans weren’t taking advantage of, and they jumped in. Fortunately for the Butchers of Beijing, the slack in foreign investment was picked up by the Taiwanese, who pumped money into China big time.
Under this unique set of circumstances, what would China have had to gain by wholesale thievery of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies? Only an angry government in Taipei, which might have gotten serious about staunching the flow of capital to China, that’s what. Better to let Taiwan have its two, three, four, new allies. A few diplomatic gains for Taiwan weren’t going to change the big picture anyways, and would have ensured those NT dollars kept a-comin’. It might even have convinced a few fools in Taipei to think some sort of detente had been achieved. Later, when American and European investors returned to the market, the relative importance of the Taiwanese contribution diminished. China could then afford to put the screws to Taiwan, secure in the knowledge that a cessation of Taiwanese investment would have limited impact, with Americans and Europeans on the scene willing to pick up the slack.
Now for that second objection. A supporter of the Chinese Nationalist Party might dismiss all of this, pointing out that THEY weren’t responsible for the loss of Taiwan’s allies. The People’s Republic of China was to blame. The communists were the ones who twisted arms, or bought governments off. Against them, tiny Taiwan just couldn’t compete in the diplomatic game.
Funny how that’s an excuse Chinese nationalists aren’t gracious enough to grant in turn to others. From Taiwan’s China Post:
The ROC government need not fault Costa Rica for leaving it. Nor should the DPP administration accuse Beijing of trying to deprive Taiwan of international space. The DPP should instead look at its own attitude and behavior. [emphasis added]
There we have it. When Chinese nationalists lose allies to the PRC, it’s the PRC’s fault. And when Taiwanese nationalists lose allies to the PRC? Well, in THAT case, the PRC is entirely blameless. The fault can ONLY lie with Taiwanese nationalists, naturally.
If I didn’t know better, I might think someone was arguing in bad faith!
But…let’s pursue this all the way to the end:
The DPP itself has not been very peaceful. Its chairman, Yu Shyi-kun, has publicly advocated a possible retaliatory missile attack on Shanghai…
Jeez. RETALIATORY strikes hardly rate up there with the KMT’s old "Retake the motherland" tomfoolery on the ol’ warmonger-ometer, but we’re not supposed to notice that. We’re only supposed to feel disgust that the victim of Chinese aggression would ever dare defend itself.
Let me paraphrase Charles Krauthammer here: When under attack, no nation is obligated to collect permission slips to strike back. But the Chinese nationalists at the China Post think otherwise. Clearly, in the event of a Chinese attack, Taiwanese ought to bend over and ask, "Please sir, can I have some more?"
(Come to think of it, that’s EXACTLY the way the Taiwan News felt America should have handled Afghanistan after the attack on 9-11. But it’s late now, and that’s a whole ‘nother topic.)
