The clearest signal sent by the presidential election is that mainstream opinion in Taiwan has changed. The pan-green camp's vote has jumped from 40 percent in 2000 to 50 percent this year, showing that a feeling of Taiwanese identity has expanded.
The Chinese Communist Party had always placed its hope in the people of Taiwan, but this election has shown that the Tai-wanese people are neither interested in nor willing to accept Beijing's policy of "one country, two systems." Mainstream opinion here is now heading in the opposite direction, away from unification. In other words, China's hopes for support from the Taiwanese have been dashed.
If Beijing and Washington were not convinced about this trend four years ago, then they should be now. They must deal with the reality of Taiwan. No matter how Beijing adjusts its policy, it is no longer possible to make "one country, two systems" the core of that policy.
The Taiwanese people should receive congratulations for this election, because their democracy is now able to stand up to the test of post-election conflict between political parties. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance refused to admit defeat, attempting to launch a mass movement, the whole world was watching to see if Taiwan's democracy would remain stable.
The fact is, despite the confrontation we see at the moment, the two camps have agreed to accept the results of a recount and resolve the conflict by legal means. With this, a political struggle has, in the end, returned to the constitutional framework. This is a victory for Taiwan's democracy, and a vindication of its democratic ideology.
Compared to the notorious 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations in Beijing, during which the Chinese Communist Party shot its own civilians and students, the relatively peaceful protests of the Taiwanese people have highlighted the democratic system's function of stabilizing society. This is a source of inspiration and encouragement to the Chinese people who thirst for democracy. Massive, violent conflict is unlikely to occur in a real democratic society, and Taiwan is the best example of this.
China has misread Taiwan's situation for a long time in two ways. First, Beijing misjudged mainstream public opinion, believing that the people's resistance to unification had merely been aroused by a minor pro-independence element, rather than an appeal from within the greater body of the people. Second, Beijing miscalculated by thinking it was able to stop a tectonic shift in mainstream opinion by issuing threats.
China is also placing hope in the US, but this strategy faces enormous obstacles. US diplomatic policy prioritizes the national interest, and this is why Beijing has been able to gain concessions from Washington over North Korea and other issues. But the promotion of US-style democracy is also a basis of US diplomacy. Thus, the US government is unlikely to sacrifice too much democracy for the sake of national interest.
Although the US strongly opposed Taiwan holding a referendum at first, it remained ambiguous in its stance, exhibiting a kind of dualism in its diplomacy. If Beijing puts excessive faith in Washington, then their unrealistic hopes will also be dashed.
China should hold more hope for itself. Confrontation and estrangement between China and Taiwan is the result of the gap between political systems. It will only be possible for the two sides to seek a certain kind of unification when China brings about democratization and erases this gap. China will only push Taiwan further away if it continues to maintain a dictatorship while persisting with military threats.
Wang Dan was a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS