Sunday, March 26, 2006

Transcript of Ma at the Council on Foreign Relations

This link to Ma's conversation at the CFR was passed on to me by Jerome Keating. The topic is largely about Taiwan's sovereignty. The interviewer, Jerome Cohen, is a friend of Ma's and does not challenge Ma on anything, giving him the maximum opportunity to look good. The conservation is structured so that Ma gets no difficult or embarrassing questions. I don't have time to blog on this busload of bad argument, but it is sad -- and scary -- that Ma gets to talk unchallenged, for so long. They let him get away with this lie again:

You know, the U.S. approved the arms sale to Taiwan, the three types—Patriot 3—(inaudible)—and the anti-submarine aircraft P3C in April 2001. But the DPP administration did not take any action until June of 2004, more than three years later. And by the time they sent the proposal to—(inaudible)—on June the 2nd, it was only barely nine days before the recess, so no serious discussion occurred. After the Legislative Yuan members came back in September—that was an election year—they were all concerned about their own election campaigns. So again, there was no serious discussion until 2005.

Once again, the US failed to submit prices on the subs until Dec of 2002, and then the MND took another 18 months to process the purchase. Ma lies a lot.

Ma is right about one thing though:

QUESTIONER:....I noticed in one of your recent interviews you said that the Americans were somewhat naive about—

MA: No, I didn’t say naive. I said gullible. (Laughter.)


No kidding.

5 comments:

MJ Klein said...

CFR = The New World Order, the guys who gave Taiwan to the Chicoms in the first place. Michael, the more you follow this the more sick its going to make you. Go hiking instead!

Michael Turton said...

You're right. I just emailed the Moderator about the interview, trying to point out that Ma is going to eff up, not support, their security arrangements in Asia.

Michael

STOP_George said...

.
.
.
This is the latest on what pandaMa has to say about the "status quo":

In response, Ma admitted that in the three-sided game between Taiwan, China and the United States, each side has its own interpretation of the "status quo."

Let's remember this shall we.

But he said the status quo could be summarized in the "five noes" that President Chen spelt out in his inauguration speeches in 2000 and 2004.

O.K. Status quo = 5 noes. Got it.

Ma added that the ROC Constitution is the basis for the status quo.

By adhering to the Constitution and keeping it as it is, and by not declaring Taiwan's independence or seeking immediate unification with China, it would be a status quo in the best interests of all three sides involved, the KMT chief said.


But I thought the status quo is the 5 noes? Guess again. Now pandaMa is tying the status quo to ANY changes to the constitution.

By stating that each side has different interpretations, pandaMa has effectively stated that the status-quo is meaningless. So, why is it so important that Taiwan maintains it's version of the status quo? -- especially in lieu of the increased agression towards Taiwan. In fact, the PRC now publicly claims sovereignty over Taiwan.

I think the fact that pandaMa has tied the status quo with the 5 noes is gift that the DPP cannot pass up. He is AGAIN saying that the NUC decision has changed (or undermined) the status quo.

The DPP can now make this an issue in 2008. That is, because pandaMA has now made it KMT policy that the NUC is vital to the status quo, the DPP can force pandaMA to answer this pressing question:

"Will pandaMa re-establish the NUC to pre-2000 importance?"

If he says Yes -- then the DPP can claim that he is against the will of the people. And pandaMa is just paying lip-service to this notion.

If he says No -- well, then it seriously contradicts his assertion that the status quo = the 5 noes.

STOP_George said...

Sorry. The quotes above are from this China Post article.

STOP_George said...

.
.
.
Check this out for some amusement:

I noticed this excerpt in the March 23rd U.S. State Department briefing:

QUESTION: The chairman of Taiwan's main opposition party Ma Ying-jeou, is visiting Washington to exchange views with U.S. officials and academics on the Cross-Strait issues. He has made some comments calling to resume talks with the Mainland and to even reach a peace accord with China. Are those the kind of policies that the U.S. would like to see Taiwan move towards?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen his remarks, but our views on those issues are well known and longstanding.

Yes. Any other -- more on China?


I found that last bit to be odd that he would just say "China" (when they were talking about pandaMa and Taiwan) so I checked out the video stream. Sure enough, he DID NOT say "China" -- he mentioned the name of a reporter (and no, her name was not "China"). Check the video/audio of the briefing HERE.
.
.
.