Share this

Jun 23, 2009

Yes, no, maybe so.

Last Wed., Ma "clarified" (muddled, really) part of his Three Nos pledge: no unification, no independence, and no war.

"No unification," Ma said, "does not mean we rule out the option of unification." The topic has already been covered at Taiwan Matters, among other blogs.

That article remains the hottest topic on Yam's news site today, and one of the more astute commentators asked how this applies to his other pledges.

No independence does not mean we rule out the option of independence?
No use of force does not mean we rule out the option of the use of force?
What sort of pledge is it, really then?

I think that there is some possibility that Ma's comment come sin light of Chinese pressure, but it's impossible to say for sure.

2 comments:

Robert R. said...

Well, the rest of the sentence is key.

"...does not mean that we rule out the option of unification, but that we will not discuss unification within my eight years in office."

So it is still some sort of a promise, but still leaves the opportunity to make it near-impossible not to be annexed soon after he leaves office. Tie us so closely that we suffocate.

Either way, his clarifications never seem to make anyone feel better.

STOP Ma said...

.
.
.
You mean PandaMa and the KMT's words mean nothing? I'm shocked! Shocked I tells ya!!

- "1992 Consensus"
- "Mutual Non-Denial"
- "319 Truth Commision"

Hello?...

.
.
.