James Rose of Corporate Governance in Asia argues in The Standard of Hong Kong that the One China concept should be junked and that Beijing's stance on Taiwan is bizarre....
News coming out of Beijing is that China won't interfere with Taiwan's presidential elections in March.Take a moment to consider this statement. The underlying assumption is that the mainland would if it so chose, a sense so strong that Beijing feels compelled to offer a denial.
It is further evidence that China's obsessive-compulsive approach to Taiwan is one of the more bizarre facets of Beijing's foreign policy, and one of its more counter-productive.
After passing on the CW about the DPP defeat in the Jan 12 elections, Rose goes on to observe:
So, any celebrations in Beijing (or in Washington) would be premature.
Even so, you can bet there have been corks popping somewhere in the halls of Zhongnanhai. The promise to stay out of the March poll is a confirmation that Beijing's Taiwan-ophiles consider they are in a winning position.
However, One China is a hopelessly out-of-date and self-defeating policy black spot that should be junked post haste. To think that the KMT victory means a surge of pro-Beijingism and a vitamin injection for One China is folly.
There are certainly positives for Beijing in Taiwan's political movements, and removal of Chen does present timely opportunities. For example, a door opens up on the possibility for greater flexibility and moderation in Beijing-Taipei relations.
Yet, to fully take advantage of this, a new basis will have to be constructed. Taiwan is unlikely to ever come willingly to full unification with China. One China, as it now exists, has to go.
Dropping, ever so quietly, the Communist Party mantra that China will never allow Taiwan to be fully independent, will be a prerequisite. There should also be a willingness to consider the definition of sovereignty, and a parallel openness to the possibility while Taiwan may or may not be given full state status, it can act more or less of its own volition and remain democratic.
The One China policy is less to do with geostrategic necessity and more about domestic political chest baring.
For the last eight years China has consistently refused to negotiate with the Chen Administration, preferring to label it "radical" while issuing threats and building up its military. It seems unlikely, given the expansionist views of many in the Chinese leadership, that they will ever give up on their attempt to blackmail their way into sovereignty over Taiwan. However, compare Rose's unusual call for common sense to the completely banal Establishment view offered by longtime East Asian scholar Joseph Nye.
The U.S. does not challenge China’s sovereignty over Taiwan, but it wants a peaceful settlement that will maintain Taiwan’s democratic institutions. In Taiwan, there is a growing sense of national identity, but a sharp division between pragmatists of the pan-blue alliance, who realize that geography will require a compromise with the Mainland, and the ruling pan-green alliance, which aspires in varying degrees to achieve independence.I love the way the KMT is said to be "pragmatic" in realizing that geography requires compromise, while the DPP, by inference, must be geographically clueless and unpragmatic. Silly DPP. The KMT is not pragmatic -- it's for sale. Big difference. Reminds me of that ironic explanation in Braveheart of what it means to be noble: the ability to compromise, by which is meant -- sell out.
Rose's piece does show to what extent the conventional wisdom is governing interpretation of the DPP's election loss. For example, the DPP is often accused by the KMT and in the CW of screwing up the economy -- let's make this point again: if the KMT really thought the economy was a mess, where was the stimulus package it could have passed at any point for the last eight years, since it controls the legislature? Clearly the CW is where KMT talking points go to achieve godhood....
One reason I hammer so often on the CW is that erroneous media formulae hang on for years even after journalists give them up. Over at China Confidential, the writer repeats a couple of common media errors:
The referendum--a nightmare for the United States, which is obligated to help Taiwan defend itself--will be held on March 22, along with presidential elections.
Xinhua said Saturday that China views the island's bid for UN membership under the name "Taiwan" as a move towards formal independence.
China regards Taiwan, which split from the mainland in 1949, following the Communist victory in the long Chinese civil war, as a province awaiting reunification--by force if necessary. China's "Anti-Secession Law" mandates the use of force if the island moves towards formal independence.
Note that the formulation "China and Taiwan split in 1949" is on the wane in the media (or so I've noticed), but here on this blog the error lives on, zombie-like. History teaches that in 1949 Taiwan was owned by Japan as it had been since 1895, not China, and would be until 1951. What split in 1949 were the KMT and the CCP. Another common error that shows up here is the notion that the US is obligated to defend Taiwan. The reality is that the Taiwan Relations Act does not obligate the US to do a single thing -- it merely mandates that Congress and the President discuss the issue. Taiwan is not involved in the process. Lots of writers make that second error, though.
[Taiwan] [media]
10 comments:
The only way that reporters/scholars are going to stop using that stupid, inaccurate line on Taiwanese history is if they are shown accurate, easy to understand boilerplate history. I would do the work for them and throw that line around again and again and again, and some lazy reporter will start using the accurate boilerplate instead of the civil war garbage.
One short note--since Taiwan hasn't been in recession since 2001-2, there isn't actually a need for a "stimulus" package. There is possibility for reforms that would increase economic growth even more, and the KMT should definitely be blamed for stalling the budget and in effect taking a bite out of GDP last year. Just nitpicking and generally being difficult, not a big deal.
Hello! I've been reading your material for a while, way back when all you had were your great "teaching in Taiwan" pages.
Anyway one thing I wonder about is whether your very strong viewpoints on Taiwan independence, your general pro-DPP stance, and your anti-KMT stance are strongly peppered by your American viewpoint. To clarify, I'm an ABC, half waishenren and half benshenren, and have relatives that span the entire gamut from hardcore pro-independence to status quo to pro-reunification.
Reading your many blog posts, one thing I always notice is that you never fail to take offense to typical reporting of the Taiwan situation. For example, you attack Nye's piece, but it wasn't terribly out of line. A-bian and the DPP aren't entirely pragmatic about their independence desires, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also the KMT aren't sell outs, they have always been pro-China because most of the leaders are from there and feel Taiwan's culture still runs from China 中華, which is true to a huge extant. And the DPP does a lot of their pro-independence events not as a real step to independence, but to appeal to its base. How is this pragmatic? This type of news commenting is consistent throughout all your blog posts.
This comment is going to be too long, so I just want to get to the point. Is your pro-independence outlook a result of the quintessential American viewpoint we have? The give me liberty or give me death mentality? As an American, my sentiments would match if not for the fact that I can draw from my Chinese/Taiwanese heritage.
But since I can, I have to say that a lot of your posts lack an appreciation of a lot of the real reasons for the current mess in the Taiwan straits. DPP pushes the limits not out of any sort of real gain, but mostly because they want to pander to and motivate the base. The PRC has based its entire nationalistic legacy on reunification, it is a lot deeper than economic reasons or simply because they are mean people. One can debate if China has right to feel such a claim, but it's disingenuous to say that "China chooses to get mad when the DPP tries to push its limits." Of course they will be mad, the real debate is whether they have a right in the first place. No where in your posts though do you suggest they absolutely have no right. Curious, would you have suggested that the South was in the right to succeed from the US? Not the same situation of course, but I think it's an interesting counter point.
The point I am getting at is that perhaps because you only came to love the island much later in your life, and mostly interact with I'm guessing pro-independent people, that you really cannot understand deep down Chinese culture and mentality. Since you are essentially an American looking from the outside, you cannot appreciate a lot of the intricacies that revolve around China - Taiwan.
I'm nominally pro-independence and nominally pro-DPP, but I feel that comes mostly from my "Americaness." But when you look at Taiwan history, and Chinese history for that matter, there really isn't a culture nor history of freedom and independence. While Europe was busy conquering and freeing itself from empire after empire, China only cared about conquering itself in the entirety, dynasty after dynasty.
Taiwan culture basically adopted this culture, and I don't think most Taiwanese are willing to sacrifice near anything for a long shot goal of independence. Sure people in the south are a lot more pro independence, but I think it is mostly because that's what they have been sort of "taught" if that makes any sense. No, from what I have gathered, most Taiwanese really don't care as long as they are able to live their lives and find a job and a bf/gf and make money and enjoy their friends and family. Sure I'm sure if you tossed out some vote, most would be happy with de jure sovereignty, but not so much that they would even think about fighting for it. And many Taiwanese still count their culture as Chinese. Taiwanese people tend to be very pragmatic people, who only do things if it has a clear benefit. The low religious rate on the island probably stems from this. Thus, the general decline of support for the overt independence shown by the DPP as it seems most Taiwanese would rather just care about what concerns them most. You said it yourself, candidates are elected not on issues but on pork. What's more symbolic of practical over ideal than that?
Anyway I have a lot to say but this is getting long, just wanted to add that! :)
For example, you attack Nye's piece, but it wasn't terribly out of line.
I didn't say it was out of line; quite the opposite! I said its problem was that it wasn't out of line! It was a boring establishment piece with nothing new to offer.
I do hack on the reporting, but I also laud it quite often. I regularly call pieces "excellent" and "insightful". But you hardly notice that, because people notice positives less than negatives.
A-bian and the DPP aren't entirely pragmatic about their independence desires, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also the KMT aren't sell outs, they have always been pro-China because most of the leaders are from there and feel Taiwan's culture still runs from China 中華, which is true to a huge extant. And the DPP does a lot of their pro-independence events not as a real step to independence, but to appeal to its base. How is this pragmatic? This type of news commenting is consistent throughout all your blog posts.
I think you've misunderstood. I don't confuse "pragmatism" with being for sale, and also, I've abused the DPP for selling out its own ideals on a number of occasions. To be "pragmatic" implies that you have important goals and are willing to take practical steps to reach them. The KMT is not pragmatic; it has no real policy vision so it is merely in it for the cash. That's not "pragmatism" but merely unscrupulousness.
The issue isn't really "pragmatism" but the reflexive, uncritical way that Nye constructs the two sides, one "pragmatic" and the other not. I wasn't responding to a particular characterization so much as I was responding to the way that characterization was arrived at: by consulting the prevailing media constructions rather than by thoughtful analysis of the situation.
Is your pro-independence outlook a result of the quintessential American viewpoint we have?
Of course. What would be the problem with that?
One can debate if China has right to feel such a claim, but it's disingenuous to say that "China chooses to get mad when the DPP tries to push its limits." Of course they will be mad, the real debate is whether they have a right in the first place.
No, I think it's vitally important to see China engaged in annexation of Taiwan as a national goal furthered by policy tactics, including the pretense of "anger". Once you start thinking that China decides whether it will be "angry" you can begin to appreciate how the tactics it uses play out in the media and in foreign policy debates. The real debate is not over whether they have a right, that is already settled in my mind, and in the minds of all men of good will. I'm always more interested in things like tactics and structure than in judgments about good and evil.
No where in your posts though do you suggest they absolutely have no right
Do you mean 'they' the DPP or 'they' Beijing?
But since I can, I have to say that a lot of your posts lack an appreciation of a lot of the real reasons for the current mess in the Taiwan straits.
Right. LOL. What are the real reasons?
DPP pushes the limits not out of any sort of real gain, but mostly because they want to pander to and motivate the base.
LOL. A point I've made many times. Yet it is also important to note that the DPP actually believes Taiwan should be independent. And that there are real gains to be made by reminding the world from time to time that Taiwan exists and isn't going to go away.
that you really cannot understand deep down Chinese culture and mentality. Since you are essentially an American looking from the outside, you cannot appreciate a lot of the intricacies that revolve around China - Taiwan.
Yes, yes, that's right. We stupid white people just aren't sophisticated enough to understand five thousand years of Chinese culture. Pardon me while I wipe the drool off my chin.
Taiwanese people tend to be very pragmatic people, who only do things if it has a clear benefit. The low religious rate on the island probably stems from this.
Whoops. It's pretty clear, from that last sentence, that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There's hardly a greater influence on Taiwanese life than religion and all the concepts that are bound up with it here.
Actually, that first sentence is pretty silly too. You tell me I don't understand the complexities of Chinese culture, and then offer as explanations two shallow stereotypes which are totally at odds with the reality of life on the island.
I'll give you a clue: a politician here was recently busted for vote buying -- his alleged crime occurred when he donated money to 16 temples. Now why would a ruthless pragmatist like a Taiwanese do that... probably he was unsophisticated like me, and didn't get the ... what was it? the intracacies of the Great Chinese Culture, which, as everyone knows, is a Mystery to All White People, especially Amurikins.
Sorry, gotta run and hang the shotguns back in the rear window of my pickup...
Michael
Mmm I think you misunderstand my intentions, and I want to add I was limited by space since I didn't want to make it into an essay, so much of my "stupid asinine comments" were due to me not wanting to expand on what I actually mean. I don't accuse you of being stupid, it is just that your viewpoints are entirely an American one and interjected into the current conflict. I am American too I should add, born and raised here.
I think my criticism was that you really do not give any validity at all to the opposing viewpoint that Taiwan shouldn't be a de jure independent country. To you, it's like not even a question. Yet even to me it isn't necessarily settled.
Way back when Taiwan was a Japanese colony, I'd imagine most Taiwanese still considered themselves Chinese. My grandfather did at least, even though he and everyone else were forced to speak Japanese. After WWII, when the KMT fled to the island (and remember, the ROC was essentially seeded the island by the Allies), they were still considered China. Only recently I suppose, when Taiwan has developed independently of China, did this independence movement arise. I just wanted to point that out since I am not convinced that there is some historical basis of Taiwan as a totally independent entity after the Chinese started to emigrate there during the 1600s. From what I recall, most of the calls for independence during those days were from the Manchus, not the Han Chinese.
The current situation being such as it is, I am still not sure that there is some God given right that Taiwan be de jure independent. Do I want Taiwan with China/PRC? Definitely not! The status quo seems fine, and I'd gather most Taiwanese probably feel the same way. But I am not convinced either that Taiwan somehow deserves de jure independence either. I mean why exactly did the US South not have the right to leave under their own volition during the Civil War?
I mentioned those earlier comments simply to state that I think you base all of your opinions on Taiwan independence solely on the basis of the American viewpoint that freedom is the most important thing, not really taking into account thousands of years of Chinese culture that really did not have such a viewpoint.
The way I see it then is that the only way Taiwan should have independence is if they fought for it. This I think they are clearly not willing to do. Instead you love these symbolic little gestures, as if China and the world will go 'okay!' and let them have their way. You detest any news report that says "Taiwan and China split after the Civil War" when that isn't exactly false. What exactly do you want news reports to say?
Most of rest of the world never ever recognized Taiwan as its own country. Until the late 70s, Taiwan was recognized as China after all. Culturally, Taiwan really never developed a unique culture independent of China. Korea (long time vassal state) did as a counter point. But Taiwanese culture is essentially Chinese culture, the language is the same (台語 of course is derived from minnanhua), most of the customs are the same, etc. In fact I argue to my Chinese mainland friends that Taiwan is the truer torch carrier of Chinese culture than the mainland due to the Cultural Revolution.
You are so set that Taiwan deserves to be de jure independent, that it is already settled in your mind such that only men of ill will believe otherwise. But I don't have ill will to the island, and I am not entirely convinced. So this goes back to if Taiwan is willing to fight for it, and I seriously doubt the answer is yes. You act as if China has no right at all and their viewpoint is utterly unreasonable, but there is at least a modicum of validity in that Taiwan is part of "China (not PRC)" and unlike Taiwan, they are willing to fight for that. Honestly, if Taiwan has some God given right to de jure independence, then why not the US South? Why not any localization movement to be honest? Quebec from Canada, North Ireland from the UK, Basque from France/Spain, Kurdistan from Turkey/Iraq, etc etc. Some of those have probably even better historical/culture justification than Taiwan does. And unlike Taiwan, some of these actually fight for their freedom, not toss up election events to excite their base.
Look, I am not pro-reunification at all, and I don't like the PRC. I have relatives on both sides of the civil war on one side, and the other side of my line goes back all the way to the original emigrants, so I guess it is more "personal" to me than it would be to you. But I want to bring up that your viewpoint of Taiwan independence is I think isn't necessarily true. I mean, to say that all men of good will have already decided that Taiwan deserves de jure independence is going a bit far. And I tend to think that you are basing it -entirely- from your American viewpoint, despite the fact that it is a classic Chinese conflict, one repeated throughout its history. This type of thinking (fixating American values on another culture without even taking into consideration said culture) is the same that led us down the merry road in Iraq after all. I recall you being against that war.
(BTW If China had the same Western values as Europe, it would -be- a Europe, full of different countries. It is to me fascinating that both places (relatively equal size, relatively different ethnic groups) ended up so differently.)
Anyway I am not in any way attacking you, sorry if it made it sound like such. And I don't disagree with most of what you say, but I just wanted to add what I thought to your comments section. I hope you don't mind debate, but I guess if you prefer only comments that agree with you, I will refrain from further comments.
Thomas --
I publish lots of comments that correct and disagree, as well as comments from well-known pro-China trolls, but if you engage in personal attacks -- especially those based on stereotypes -- you will get a nasty response.
There may or may not have been any sense of independence 200 years ago, but neither was Taiwan ever considered part of China at any time prior to WWII. China's drive to annex Taiwan is entirely result of the decisions taken during and after WWII, largely by the US. After all in 1927, when Chiang Kai-shek claimed to have unified China, nobody asked him where Taiwan was...because nobody thought of Taiwan as part of China.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the rightness of China's claim to Taiwan. There is nothing in history or international law that justifies annexing the island to China. End of that discussion.
As for other places, I have no problem with the South seceding from the US, or anyplace whose people want to control their own destiny forming their own political entity to do it. Part of the earth's problem is that political entities are too large. But you should review some history -- the US South was not entirely for secession -- the Georgia legislative vote was totally fraudulent, for example -- and after the vote, counties all over the South seceded from their state governments. Much of that debate was entirely lost in the reconstruction of Southern history in the post-Civil War era....
In fact I argue to my Chinese mainland friends that Taiwan is the truer torch carrier of Chinese culture than the mainland due to the Cultural Revolution.
The underlying problem here is not with your claim about who has the 'true' Chinese culture but the entirely Chinese-stereotypical belief -- I think it is interesting how you claim I lack depth and that I am a victim of my American mentality, and then you offer Chinese stereotype after Chinese stereotype -- that there actually is a 'true' Chinese culture. That belief in 'true' Chinese culture is part of a package of beliefs that underpin a political hegemony based in Beijing (its political functions and origins are the eastern analogue to the western concept of the Aryan and his right dominate, since he is the true originator of culture). There are many 'Chinese' cultures, of which Taiwan is one. The entire reason for the "culture debate" is that both sides have bought into this chauvinist cultural ideal of One True Chinese culture, and thus, consciously or unconsciously, subscribe to its political assumptions. The trick is seeing through the 'culture claim' to the underlying political claim, and rejecting the sterile idea of 'One True Chinese Culture' in favor of a more robust and diverse view of things. It doesn't matter who has the true Chinese culture or that some portion of Taiwan's cultural origins are Chinese. That means nothing politically.
Your viewpoint that Independence only has meaning if it is fought for is ridiculous and immature. Perhaps you should tell the Canadians and Australians that their independence is meaningless because they never rebelled against the British to gain their freedom. Many other colonies have similar histories of peaceful independence, and I doubt that they value it less than those of us who had to fight wars to overcome powerful nations with a desperate need to control others. It is far better to live humbly for a cause than to die nobly for it. Beijing's need to use the threat of force is simple proof of the wrongness of its claims -- i fit had any real claim to Taiwan or Tibet, it would not need to invade them.
Michael
One short note--since Taiwan hasn't been in recession since 2001-2, there isn't actually a need for a "stimulus" package. There is possibility for reforms that would increase economic growth even more, and the KMT should definitely be blamed for stalling the budget and in effect taking a bite out of GDP last year.
Sure, there hasn't been any need for a stimulus package. But the point I'm tryign to make is that if the KMT really believes this crap, they should have acted on it. The lack of action is just proof that it is propaganda. I'm just trying to find a quick and clear way to expose the propaganda claim.
Michael
but if you engage in personal attacks -- especially those based on stereotypes -- you will get a nasty response.
Once again that was not my intention, but rather space limitations and a very poor word choice.
After all in 1927, when Chiang Kai-shek claimed to have unified China, nobody asked him where Taiwan was...because nobody thought of Taiwan as part of China.
Well during the time of course Taiwan was solidly and legally in the hands of Japan. I have seen historical maps that do not include Taiwan, but China has historically been a blob (in terms of borders) of sorts. But it should be clear that Taiwan never managed to achieve any sort of recognition as an independent de jure sovereign country.
'm not going to get into a debate about the rightness of China's claim to Taiwan. There is nothing in history or international law that justifies annexing the island to China. End of that discussion.
I don't disagree necessarily with this, but is there anything in history or international law that legally justifies Taiwan being de jure independent? Taiwan has never been de jure indpendent in its history once the Dutch landed on it. The island has bounced from being a neglected Ming exclave to an annexed Qing provice to an outright Japanese colony. And its legal status was sent back to the ROC afterwards. Yes I agree it was a terrible tragedy that the people of Taiwan were never consulted in all of this, but that's the nature of this world. Our great country (among EVERY country) for example was partly built on this type of legacy, conquering lands from Native Americans, Mexico, Hawaii, etc. There is not a single country on this planet that can claim complete innocence. This is just how things are. But we still have to respect that, otherwise the entirety of our global system is undermined and say hello to mass ethnic or localized separatism movements.
As for other places, I have no problem with the South seceding from the US, or anyplace whose people want to control their own destiny forming their own political entity to do it. -- the US South was not entirely for secession -- counties all over the South seceded from their state governments
Ah but now I have to ask, at what point does a nation have a right to its own integrity? The counties in the southern state are a perfect example. Should they have been able to secede from the southern states at a -county- level? Can immigrant enclaves in various countries vote to leave once they reach a majority population? What if my city, to the man, all want out of America? Should we be able to? I tend to like the argument you put up that people should be able to decide, but in reality, no country on Earth will willingly balkanize itself to appease the people/ethnic group of a particular region. And also, you can bet immigration->citizenship would near be outlawed if this could indeed happen.
And also you have to ask, does the Taiwan population AS A WHOLE want de jure independence? You constantly take the viewpoint that any Taiwanese that does not is somewhere between unreasonable and a sellout. But that is not a fair viewpoint, as one can be Taiwanese and also feel attachment to zhonghua and not want to entirely leave it. This is like the example you bring up about the Southern counties. Should Ping Tung be able to be its own little country, while the rest of Taiwan keeps the status quo? Or conversely, should Taipei remain a "province of the ROC" while the rest of Taiwan is de jure independent? At what level do we stop this?
and then you offer Chinese stereotype after Chinese stereotype -- that there actually is a 'true' Chinese culture. That belief in 'true' Chinese culture is part of a package of beliefs that underpin a political hegemony based in Beijing .....
Once again the lack of space has made me over-simplify. Yes you are correct about the culture part. I don't really mean one true culture. I do mean though that Taiwan culture is definitely a "type" of Chinese culture like you said. Also I tend to disagree that Beijing tries to sell us the lie of an one Chinese culture. After all, Mandarin is called putonghua instead of guoyu. They sell us instead some claim of Chinese nationalism independent of the many Chinese cultures that binds the amorphous blob together, but that is total tangent.
My only point was that I think the case of de jure independence would be stronger if Taiwan had managed to develop a unique culture like Vietnam or Korea did, despite being heavily influenced by Chinese language and being longtime vassal states. Ethnically, Taiwan people are Han (not including the native Taiwanese of course). Culturally, Taiwan culture is a Chinese culture. Historically, Taiwan has never been de jure independent. There are a lot of places (Quebec, Chenchen, Basque, yadda yadda) that have met 2 or even 3 of those and no nation even entertains the thought of giving them de jure nation-status despite them clearly wanting it. So if we give those people no consideration, why are the rest of the world being complicit in denying Taiwan the same?
And in terms of popular vote, I don't think anyone really knows. Most people consistently vote for the status quo in polls I've seen, although that's always with the threat of China looming. The pro-dejure group that you belong in are a minority, and the pro-reunification group are a very tiny minority. But you can't say yourself that most people would jump at de jure independence over the current status quo either I don't believe. My point from all this is how can you be so sure and set that it is already settled, and all there is to do is to convince China and the world through press wording and symbolic gestures.
Your viewpoint that Independence only has meaning if it is fought for is ridiculous and immature. Perhaps you should tell the Canadians and Australians that their independence is meaningless because they never rebelled against the British to gain their freedom.
I do not mean this at all. I only said that in the CONTEXT of the Taiwan situation. During the massive decolonization of the 20th century, sure, those countries received independence. Some fought for it. Some protested for it. Some got it without even asking. Whether they deserved it or not, they received it and thats all that matters. De Jure Independence only has meaning when the world bestows it on you. That is after all the definition. Otherwise this would be de facto and there is no argument there.
Also China is not the UK. They will not ever get rid of their claims on Taiwan. You know this and I know this. Therefore Taiwan needs to fight for their independence, much like America did, or maybe even like India with their protests, if they are ever to see it.
But Taiwan has shown very little in the way of fighting for independence though. Whenever something as symbolic as the UN vote comes up, look at how fast the yes votes drop the closer to the actual election comes. I say this because on what obligation does the world owe Taiwan de jure status when the majority will vote no on a purely symbolic vote (we both know there is no UN seat waiting for them) simply because they don't want to piss off the mainland for fear their investments will go awry? Aside from the minority that you are part of, the fervent pro-dejure, do you honestly believe that the majority of Taiwanese REALLY dearly want de jure status and care enough to fight for it like we Americans did? Or do you think that most Taiwanese care more about job prospects and their daily life? My father took conscription seriously and served for two years proudly, but my cousins can't wait to get out and the amount of time keeps getting shorter!
Beijing's need to use the threat of force is simple proof of the wrongness of its claims -- i fit had any real claim to Taiwan or Tibet, it would not need to invade them.
Not necessarily. This goes back to my previous comment that a country has a right to protect its national integrity. China obviously feels Taiwan is a part of China. The use of force does not by itself imply they are wrong in those claims. Almost every country (even the most liberal of democracies) have used force against itself in order to protect what it feels is its national integrity.
I also am curious to how you respond to my other assertion regarding putting an entirely American idealism on the situation. We did that in Iraq after all. Anyway please don't think I am arguing with you for the sake of arguing. My opinions on certain things have changed due to our discussion.
thomas, playing devil's advocate here doesn't really work. I myself have been singled out for "asinine comments," but I'm relatively restrained amongst non-greens. I've seen people provide perfectly rational and valid points in certain places, and they get dismissed as trolls.
The fact is, there is a deep-rooted hatred within the political spectrum--I won't name names. To hypothesize any rational motives behind KMT actions is logically incorrect. To suggest that the KMT is any more than a pig for sale to the CCP is considered "worshipping authoritarianism" and "anti-democracy."
Nobody is supporting immediate absorption into the PRC; even the KMT vehemently rejects it. Nobody is proposing a cession of direct elections; even the KMT urges the DPP to improve and compete in future elections. Yet the KMT are consistently labelled pro-PRC, pro-despotism and anti-democracy by certain political alignments.
To the DPP and much of it's deep-green base--I am not accusing anyone here--China has no politics because the despotic Party tells people when to eat, sleep and speak. Therefore, they have no nationalistic rights and no right to exert any political influence, let alone move some missiles around. Some seem to even enjoy a right to tell Beijing whether it has a right to express anger.
Basically, the DPP sees its giant neighbour as a second-class citizen. I'm not saying it's wrong to defend Taiwan, but one cannot just dismiss the aspirations of such a large nation in the name of democracy and being "pro-Taiwan." The problem lies in the bigger picture: Taiwan's people and culture are largely based from the mainland, promoting close economic ties. The solution is never unilateral.
Trolls will be treated as trolls, channing.
Therefore, they have no nationalistic rights and no right to exert any political influence, let alone move some missiles around. Some seem to even enjoy a right to tell Beijing whether it has a right to express anger.
Poor channing. Imagine pointing out that in PRC foreign policy, "expressing anger" is a public policy tool. Oh, the unfairness of it all! Imagine valuing democracy over authoritarianism and freedom over control. The horror!
Michael
Also I tend to disagree that Beijing tries to sell us the lie of an one Chinese culture. After all, Mandarin is called putonghua instead of guoyu. They sell us instead some claim of Chinese nationalism independent of the many Chinese cultures that binds the amorphous blob together, but that is total tangent.
I think you might find that most people who study the construction of Beijing's use of "culture" will disagree with this position. Deployment of a fictional and idealized Chinese culture -- like the faux Ming architecture that makes up the CKS memorial other KMT projects -- was part of the KMT glorification of things Chinese, and is today one of Beijing's methods of controlling the discourse about China -- creating the kind of exceptionalism Chris Patten complained about with his pithy comment that China must be treated like a Ming vase.
Again and again you can see this pattern of Sinicization as annexation in Chinese history. Hence, Beijing's use of "culture" is not tangent but central, here. Ironically, you note that below.
My only point was that I think the case of de jure independence would be stronger if Taiwan had managed to develop a unique culture like Vietnam or Korea did, despite being heavily influenced by Chinese language and being longtime vassal states.
Taiwan does have a unique culture, Thomas. But its expression is different than what goes on in Vietnam and Korea. For example, there's the love of things Japanese and the enormous influence of Japan on language, food, thought, and culture, the huge proportion of Hakkas, the experience of being both a frontier people and a colonized people for 300 years, etc.
Ethnically, Taiwan people are Han (not including the native Taiwanese of course).
Ethnically a lot of those "Han" are in fact aborigines who adopted "Han" cultures, especially many of the Hakka. There's a lot less "Han" here than people generally think. Of course, arguments from "blood" are ridiculous either way.
This goes back to my previous comment that a country has a right to protect its national integrity.
I agree! But Taiwan is not part of China, so that doesn't apply.
China obviously feels Taiwan is a part of China.
No, China obviously wants to annex Taiwan. "Feeling" Taiwan is part of China is strictly a post-WWII phenomenon. For centuries Taiwan was traditionally regarded as being outside China. This "sacred national territory" argument is a recent arrival in history.
But it should be clear that Taiwan never managed to achieve any sort of recognition as an independent de jure sovereign ountry.
Completely irrelevant. Neither had dozens of other former colonies prior to their establishment as nations: India, Canada, Kenya.... the list is long.
And Taiwan's lack of prior recognized independence does not mean that it is part of China. Those are unrelated arguments. Uganda was not an internationally recognized nation prior to independence, but that does not mean it is part of China!
At this point, the island of Taiwan belongs to the people of Taiwan. Period.
My point from all this is how can you be so sure and set that it is already settled, and all there is to do is to convince China and the world through press wording and symbolic gestures.
I'm not sure what you mean here. You mean -- how do I know what my values are? I'm 44 years old, Thomas, I've run businesses, raised kids, traveled the world, married a foreigner... of course I know what my values are. I know which ones I inherit by being American, and I am comfortable with the ones I have adopted as core values.
Are you seriously claiming that if there was no threat from the PRC, that if the PRC credibly said "OK, we renounce our desire to annex Taiwan, ya'll do what you like" that most people in Taiwan wouldn't choose an independent state?
Finally, it is important to note how the discourse is shaped by the pro-annexation propaganda emanating from Beijing. If you don't like the way I deconstruct the media, you are welcome to start your own blog and fight back.
Also China is not the UK. They will not ever get rid of their claims on Taiwan. You know this and I know this.
Perhaps, so we must always be ready to fight. You got no disagreement from me there. But I remember when nobody thought the USSR would collapse....and foresaw the independence of Poland, Kazakh, etc. History often offers opportunities, if people are ready to seize them.
Post a Comment