Whether or not an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China is first presented to the legislature for debate, the fact remains that the Democratic Progressive Party stands to gain from any perception that the deal damages Taiwan’s political and/or economic interests.
The ECFA is a prelude to wider discussions of a political deal between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and the Chinese Communist Party. We know this because the Chinese have said as much, and because it is consistent with KMT rhetoric, if not President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) hasty campaign pledge to avoid the issue.
Ma’s promise, while sensible in the context of an election, may have weakened the KMT’s ability to be taken seriously over the long term as both a unificationist organization and a nationalist political group.
Promising not to talk about unification may put fears to rest that difficult decisions would be forced upon people sooner rather than later, but it also suggests that the party has little capacity for developing a sales pitch outlining what unification would entail — assuming, of course, that Taiwanese would have some say in the matter.
A deal with Beijing could carry serious drawbacks for Taiwan, and it would be essential for the KMT to neutralize these by appealing to the emotions through promoting a concern for the fate of ordinary Chinese (recall the impressive Sichuan earthquake aid drive) and the dignity of a unified nation. Taiwan’s leading role in China’s future would need to be elaborated on for a sophisticated Taiwanese audience that gives no weight to the language of Chinese propagandists.
Without the ability to sell such a unification package to ordinary Taiwanese — whatever the fine print may be — havoc and bloodshed will be the KMT’s reward when the critical moment comes.
Intriguingly, the KMT does not seem to understand that for Taiwanese, unification with China would require a growing identification with ordinary Chinese — not their autocratic system of government.
As a party in a democratic state, the KMT will not be able to convince skeptics that it has honorable intentions if it continues to display ignorance of the circumstances facing the bulk of the Chinese population.
If the KMT continues to ignore the plight of exploited peasants, Chinese democracy activists, ethnic Tibetans, Uighurs, Mongolians and others, and cannot champion a country that is ruled by law rather than a technocratic-military clique, then its claim to speak for and defend Taiwan after unification would be laughed at, even by its own supporters.
Democracy activists in China frequently refer to the Taiwanese experience as an inspiration, if not exactly a template. The KMT could make tremendous use of this to advance an argument for unification with the principles (if not practices) that founded the Republic of China. But in doing so, the KMT would also have to demonstrate that it can help reform China — and that, for the foreseeable future, is a terribly far-fetched prospect.
There was a time decades ago when the Nationalist camp boasted genuine intellectuals who thought it important to develop a political philosophy that would unite and strengthen the country, while resisting the advance of communism. Their efforts were not always successful, but at least there was effort.
Those days are long gone. If the president really thinks unification is feasible, then he and his party are going to have to get a whole lot smarter.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS