Last month’s visit by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) sparked conflicts within Taiwan that have not dissipated. Chen’s visit highlighted sharp differences in the public’s views of China as well.
One view focuses on the opportunity and benefits that China may represent. Some believe that China’s yearly GDP growth of 10 percent, its accumulation of US$2 trillion in foreign reserves and the potential buying power of its economy will be the saviors of the global economic recession. According to this view, closer links with China will bring Taiwan a prosperous future and China is seen as the nation’s only hope.
This theory is based on the unstated hypothesis that political responsibility, democracy and human rights can be sacrificed for economic growth — up to an “appropriate” extent.
This has been facilitated by the negotiations between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Agreements reached via the party-to-party platform are then ratified by the Straits Exchange Foundation and ARATS and put into effect by the governments of Taiwan and China.
Taiwan is a democracy, but the KMT-CCP communication platform is non-transparent and has managed to escape monitoring of the legislature and civil society.
However, for monopolistic business groups, the platform is very effective and direct cross-strait flights and other special privileges are decided behind closed doors, which is more efficient than open negotiations.
But this view of China as an economic opportunity is incomplete. It considers problems from the viewpoint of capitalist groups and blindly sings the praises of economic development, while ignoring issues such as massive social costs, destruction of the environment and the exploitation of hundreds of millions of workers.
As China’s power increases, social inequality is increasing. Not long ago, Chinese political scientist Ding Xueliang (丁學良) said in the online version of the Chinese-language publication Financial News that the Chinese model should not be adopted in developing nations precisely because the social costs are too high.
A second view of China focuses on the threats our neighbor may present.
Beijing’s bullying of Taiwan has not eased, despite Taipei’s gestures of goodwill. China has taken various steps to oppress Taiwan. The “Anti-Secession” Law, the “one China” principle and the 1,000 missiles it has aimed at Taiwan are a few examples. If it establishes closer links with China, Taiwan will become a second Hong Kong and democracy will be a thing of the past.
China has had its eyes on Taiwan for a long time and it is a society full of risk, with the recent melamine-tainted milk scandal being a good example. China is unstable and at risk of collapsing, as exemplified by continuous protests and riots in Xinjiang and Tibet. With close economic links, Taiwan would risk suffering immensely if CCP rule collapsed.
This view is based on the hypothesis that Taiwan has always been a victim in its dealings with China, with money going into China and debt staying in Taiwan. But many Taiwanese businesspeople have found success in China and the cross-strait division of labor has indirectly helped upgrade industries in Taiwan.
In addition, hundreds of millions of peasant workers fuel the “world’s factory” — including joint ventures between China and Taiwan — and have therefore contributed to Taiwan’s economy.
But this view also has a blind spot: It ignores the changes that have taken place in China and the state of Chinese society.
After 30 years of developing a market economy, China is no longer truly communist but is moving toward bureaucratic capitalism. The irony is that the KMT, with its anti-communist history, has long been friendly to the CCP, while the Taiwanese public’s fears of “Red China” are still fed by decades of the KMT’s anti-communist propaganda.
Although China is strictly controlled by the state, many NGOs are active in gray areas where the state cannot supervise and control them. Protesters in China no longer protest in the name of “class struggle” — they use creative and imaginative terms to package their activities.
For example, some people use the term “take a stroll” to refer to street protests, while others use the term “visit” to mean surrounding a government office. This is reminiscent of the way street protests were called “self-help movements” 20 or so years ago in Taiwan.
The two above-mentioned views of China, while very different, have one thing in common: Both lack social perspective.
Taiwan’s understanding of China should be based on progressive values and careful analysis of social issues. I would like to propose that with the rise of China’s economy, China is no longer a backward country and the CCP is no longer a totalitarian party, but an authoritarian party characterized by resilient and flexible rule.
Various social groups are emerging in China and Taiwanese people comprise one of these. The market economy has made China wealthier, but has also aggravated social inequalities. The ways in which China uses its state apparatus to control society are becoming more technological and subtle, while diversity and social protest become more common.
There is a great deal of truth behind the threats that China represents, but the image of the “Red Terror” has been exaggerated.
Cross-strait exchanges should not be monopolized by two political parties that only represent political and business interests. The KMT-CCP talks are an anti-democratic platform for secret party diplomacy. They serve business groups and represent a private club for the ruling elite and high ranking officials and business leaders whose prime concern is money and power. The agenda they set covers up and crowds out serious social problems.
Apart from the KMT-CCP platform, we need something along the lines of a cross-strait civil society platform to promote open and democratic dialogue. Taiwan should engage China’s cultural and academic circles as well as civic groups to help Chinese better understand Taiwan. This would also help both sides share their experiences fighting to survive in societies characterized by decades of dictatorship.
It is worth thinking about what inspiration the negative and positive experiences we gained through democratic transformation can give China’s awakening civil society — and how progressive circles from both sides of the Strait can combine their efforts and fight right-wing influences in our societies.
The establishment of a cross-strait civil society platform would not only help protect the nation’s democracy, it could help encourage China to think about what social values it has sacrificed in its quest to become a wealthy and strong nation.
Wu Jieh-min is an associate professor of sociology and a member of the executive committee at the Center for Contemporary China at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS