Fri, Feb 24, 2006 page8

• Pragmatic path is the best solution

  • By Chen I-chung 陳宜中
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The newspapers report that factional infighting is rife in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the question of whether or not independence should be an option for Taiwan. When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) passed its "Anti-Secession" Law last March, some people in academic and cultural circles used respect for the free choice of the people of Taiwan as a reason to promote the idea that "independence is also an option."

  In other words, the question of whether or not Taiwan should become independent must be freely decided by the people of Taiwan, without any military threats from China. Because this idea leads easily to misunderstandings, it must be analyzed in a multi-layered manner.

  First, from the perspective of political freedom and the freedom of speech, promoting Taiwan's independence is the same thing as promoting independence for Taichung. It is a fundamental right and freedom protected in the Constitution of the Republic of China. Put more succinctly, each citizen has the right to express their political beliefs because the expression of individual beliefs is part of political freedom and the freedom of speech. I believe that there is a high degree of consensus on this point throughout all sectors of Taiwanese society.

  Once "free choice" has been used to legitimize a political party's or even a government's separatist line, however, some more serious issues come to the fore. The issue then is no longer political freedom and the freedom of speech of citizens, but rather the cost of separatism as a collective political choice, and the moral responsibility that parties and politicians must fulfill by taking that cost into serious consideration.

  Historically speaking, the separatist movement that didn't claim "free choice" has never existed, but that catchphrase does nothing to help explain the cost of separatism. The calls in recent years to write a new constitution and change the country's national title, or even the recent talk about abolishing the National Unification Council and the unification guidelines are all basically a matter of "unilateral separatism," or a separatist movement that utterly ignores the mother country's unwillingness to accept a peaceful parting of ways. In history, this kind of separatist movement has always been steeped in blood and has met with very little success.

  One often mentioned example is the US Civil War, which led to the deaths of 600,000 people. During the period between the end of World War II and the break-up of the Soviet Union, such unilateral separatism has only succeeded on one occasion, in 1971, when East Pakistan separated from West Pakistan to form the People's Republic of Bangladesh. But Bangladesh's independence was helped by the full military support of India and was paid for with more than three million lives. One reason for this "success" was that West Pakistan was thoroughly defeated; another that it was almost impossible for Pakistan to re-occupy the distant Bangladesh.

  If a region that still is not independent wants to achieve independence, the best option for it is to obtain the approval of the mother country. Norway in 1905, Singapore in 1965, and Slovakia in 1993 are all successful examples of countries that have gained independence peacefully thanks to the approval of the mother country.

  The second best option is that the mother country breaks up and has no choice but to accept separation, leading to a relatively peaceful road to independence. One example of this is Ukraine, where public support for independence was still quite low in early 1990. A year later when the Soviet break-up had become clearer, independence appeared as a gift from the sky, and was supported by 90 percent of the public. If Ukraine had started to promote unilateral secession five or ten years earlier, the country may well have become the target of military suppression, the panacea for the Soviet-era communist government.

  By comparison, gunsmoke-accompanied unilateral secession is by far the worst option. From the perspective of moral responsibilities, regardless of whether we talk about the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its promotion of a new constitution, changing the nation's title and abolishing the NUC and the unification guidelines, or the KMT and its continuing inability to explain what it means when it says that "Taiwan independence is also an option," both parties have the responsibility to explain the cost of this "worst option." This is clearly their most fundamental moral responsibility, politically speaking.

  Furthermore, rather than continuing to pray before the Taiwan independence altar or saying that "Taiwan independence is an option," we should ask, "How, or when, can Taiwan independence become a reasonable political option?"

  If independence proponents really do place their hopes on peaceful independence following a break-up of China, then the ideal and most pragmatic current policy would be to work to protect the current status quo across the Taiwan Strait -- a situation where Taiwan is neither unified with China nor independent from it -- and direct all efforts toward cross-strait reconciliation and peaceful and stable interaction. It would not be to choose unilateral separatism.

  No radical, badly timed unilateral separatist movement would be likely to achieve its goal. If an example is needed, we should look to Ukraine. Rather than placing our hopes on China breaking up, however, maybe we should find ways of gradually promoting liberal democracy in China and the realization there of social justice. This is the only way to bring about a cross-strait situation where the mother country could possibly agree to a peaceful separation.

  Looking at it today, the possibility of this kind of peaceful separation is not very high, because even if China does democratize, there are no guarantees that it will agree to Taiwan's independence. This is no surprise, since even an old democracy like Canada refuses to agree to Quebec's unilateral demands for separation. But the main point is that, no matter how hard Quebec works for independence, there is no risk of armed conflict. If Taiwan wants peaceful independence from China, China must first behave like Canada.

  If we use the interactions between Quebec and Canada as an example, then independence as an option is in fact implied in the National Unification Guidelines where it talks about "eventual unification subject to certain conditions and without any timetable."

  In other words, if the common belief in liberal democracy makes the two conflicting parties more willing to resolve their differences through rational communication, and if the future free, democratic China with well distributed wealth that is outlined in the unification guidelines materializes, then would that not make unification a reasonable option, while at the same time also making independence a reasonable option that could be deliberated upon?

  When that day comes, there is no longer a problem of bloody warfare, and a situation where both independence and unification can be the best possible option will become a possibility.

  Political parties and politicians fulfilling their moral responsibilities should work toward creating a situation where both unification and independence will be seen as reasonable options.

  Chen I-chung is an associate research fellow at the Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica.

  Translated by Perry Svensson
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese technicians join airport MRT project

  • 2

    A train for whom? Is a new monorail helpful for Cairo?

  • 3

    Apple is giving Intel’s turnaround some momentum

  • 4

    Uncrewed US craft transits the Taiwan Strait

  • 5

    Taiwan firms eye Philippines amid shift to non-China supply chains: CIER