I have great respect for your work, Zichen, but translating this message and saying it’s from the “former president of Taiwan” without mentioning his historical views on China or what party he’s from leaves out some important context for those less familiar with Taiwan’s domestic politics. Knowing who he is, it is really not surprising or interesting that he would say any of this.
This is a man who had a 9.2% popularity rating by the time he finished his term. His abysmal attempts to manage cross-strait relations resulted in the Sunflower movement, which galvanised a generation of Taiwanese and all but ensured the DPP would rule for the next 12 years (so far). Why should anyone take his views on Japan-China-Taiwan relations seriously?
China must thank for the wording of "collective self-defence" of Sanae Takaichi for indicating the missing point of China`s legal argument on Taiwan. The wording "Taiwan could constitute a survival-threatening situation for Japan" means violation of the UN Charter Article 2.4. Under the UN Charter, you cannot define your own concept of " collective self-defence" and should need to be in harmony with the UN "collective defense system". There is another missing point in general by the academicians and diplomats s that is the UN "collective defence system” can only be legal under the UN Charter if it is “collective self-defence.” The other point missing from China side is that I wrote this as an article before, under the UN Charter, Taiwan belongs to China and recognition of Tawain also is a violation of the UN Charter. If you define a unilateral concept of a so-called "collective self-defence" by the violation of the UN Charter as Sanae Takaichi mentioned, is under the definition of “aggression” under Article 4 General Assembly Resolution 3314 and China can take this so-called "collective self-defence" to the Security Council under Article 39 of the UN Charter. For the missing point of China`s legal argument on Taiwan, I already wrote as an article. This is the mistake of China for not to use my legal work. Also I can open the road of the independence of Okinawa in peaceful ways.
Ma Ying-jeou is an irrelevance. Only mainlanders take him seriously these days - which tells us how out of touch they are and also that the CCP has no viable strategy for 'peaceful reunification'. If it did it wouldn't throw a rhetorical fit over the Japanese leader stating the obvious - a war on its southern is dangerous and threatening. I've love to hear China diplomats tell Poland that Russia's war on Ukraine poses no threat to them.
Ma's invocation of the East China Sea Peace Initiative is intresting because it frames stability as the paramount value, essentialy asking Japan to accept a more constrained role. The point about collective self-defense being misapplied is sharp, especialy noting the lack of US consultation. Its a reminder that even allied frameworks have limits and that unilateral moves can backfire diplomaticaly.
I have great respect for your work, Zichen, but translating this message and saying it’s from the “former president of Taiwan” without mentioning his historical views on China or what party he’s from leaves out some important context for those less familiar with Taiwan’s domestic politics. Knowing who he is, it is really not surprising or interesting that he would say any of this.
This is a man who had a 9.2% popularity rating by the time he finished his term. His abysmal attempts to manage cross-strait relations resulted in the Sunflower movement, which galvanised a generation of Taiwanese and all but ensured the DPP would rule for the next 12 years (so far). Why should anyone take his views on Japan-China-Taiwan relations seriously?
China must thank for the wording of "collective self-defence" of Sanae Takaichi for indicating the missing point of China`s legal argument on Taiwan. The wording "Taiwan could constitute a survival-threatening situation for Japan" means violation of the UN Charter Article 2.4. Under the UN Charter, you cannot define your own concept of " collective self-defence" and should need to be in harmony with the UN "collective defense system". There is another missing point in general by the academicians and diplomats s that is the UN "collective defence system” can only be legal under the UN Charter if it is “collective self-defence.” The other point missing from China side is that I wrote this as an article before, under the UN Charter, Taiwan belongs to China and recognition of Tawain also is a violation of the UN Charter. If you define a unilateral concept of a so-called "collective self-defence" by the violation of the UN Charter as Sanae Takaichi mentioned, is under the definition of “aggression” under Article 4 General Assembly Resolution 3314 and China can take this so-called "collective self-defence" to the Security Council under Article 39 of the UN Charter. For the missing point of China`s legal argument on Taiwan, I already wrote as an article. This is the mistake of China for not to use my legal work. Also I can open the road of the independence of Okinawa in peaceful ways.
Ma Ying-jeou is an irrelevance. Only mainlanders take him seriously these days - which tells us how out of touch they are and also that the CCP has no viable strategy for 'peaceful reunification'. If it did it wouldn't throw a rhetorical fit over the Japanese leader stating the obvious - a war on its southern is dangerous and threatening. I've love to hear China diplomats tell Poland that Russia's war on Ukraine poses no threat to them.
Ma's invocation of the East China Sea Peace Initiative is intresting because it frames stability as the paramount value, essentialy asking Japan to accept a more constrained role. The point about collective self-defense being misapplied is sharp, especialy noting the lack of US consultation. Its a reminder that even allied frameworks have limits and that unilateral moves can backfire diplomaticaly.