During the course of his recent speech in the National People’s Congress (NPC), Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said the process of Taiwan’s economic integration with China would continue, adding that if Taiwan were to behave, this might eventually become the basis for a free trade agreement.
There was nothing new in Wen’s remark about Taiwan regarding closer political and economic relations. It was vague and lacking in specifics.
For instance, Wen called for “fair and reasonable arrangements” for Taiwan’s participation in international organizations. But there was nothing to suggest how to go about it nor what the scope of Taiwan’s international participation would be.
In the same way, he talked about a formal cessation of hostilities with Taiwan. He didn’t indicate, however, if there would be a formal peace treaty or some other defined mechanism of dialogue or cooperation between the militaries of the two countries.
The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is focusing on the economic aspects of the relationship, and is not too keen to take up the political and military aspects.
This approach is dangerous, because over time the relative weight of China’s economic and political power might become so overwhelming that Taiwan would not have any option but to wind up as another Hong Kong.
It won’t be much fun being in that situation when China is faced with problems such as the serious concern about the adequacy of the US$585 billion stimulus plan China announced in November, as well as its distribution and the level of transparency involved.
Some of the stimulus money is said to be a repackaging of the old spending plans.
Of the overall planned spending, nearly US$175 billion will come from the central government and the rest from banks, investors and local governments.
Without specific guidelines, all this seems to be a questionable arrangement, to say the least.
There will be very little transparency, particularly with regard to spending by local governments and other agencies on pet projects, which will involve corruption and wasteful expenditure. Obviously, much of the stimulus money will go into infrastructure projects like building roads and railways.
Some party elders are worried about this on two levels. First, they would like more spending for social sectors like health and education. Their second worry is the lack of transparency and the consequent need for democratic functioning.
Talking about the priorities of the stimulus package, Du Guang (杜光), a party elder, reportedly said: “You have to look at how to expand demand in the long term … Social spending is more important than building railways, expressways and other basic infrastructure.”
And there is serious concern about corruption, as expressed in a Jan. 20 letter from some elders to Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and the party leadership.
A New York Times report quoted the letter as saying: “We are extremely worried that the privileged and the corrupt will seize this opportunity to fatten themselves … and intensify social conflict.”
They therefore urged the party leadership to free the media and let courts operate without interference to ensure greater transparency and a fairer judicial process.
In other words, the party should take this opportunity of economic slowdown to readjust economic priorities with greater focus on social spending, combined with democracy.
As one elder said: “The greater the difficulties, the greater the need for democracy.”
The letter in a way reaffirmed China’s “Charter 08,” which listed the sad political reality of the country and the need for democratic reforms.
The charter said, in part: “The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a Constitution but no constitutional government. The ruling elite continues to cling to its authoritarian power and fights off any move toward political change.”
This in turn has led to “endemic official corruption … crony capitalism, [and] growing inequality between the wealthy and the poor ... The decline of the current system has reached a point where change is no longer optional.”
But the people of China shouldn’t hold their breath expecting things to change. The chairman of the nominal NPC has categorically rejected any notion that the party might even consider political liberalization.
While addressing the NPC, Standing Committee Chairman Wu Bangguo (吳邦國) warned the legislators that without the Chinese Communist Party in control, China “would be torn by strife and incapable of accomplishing anything.”
Not only did he reject the idea of Western-style multi-party democracy for China, he even argued that China’s one-party rule was superior. And therefore it was imperative that China should maintain “the correct political orientation” laid down by the party.
How the party manages social stability in a country of 1.3 billion people in the midst of growing social unrest from increasing unemployment will be interesting to watch.
Under one-party rule, when there are no legitimate channels of expressing dissent and dissatisfaction, the only conceivable way would be through coercion, fear and control.
Yet, with the current economic slowdown, unemployment is getting worse. Twenty million rural migrants have already lost their jobs in the cities, which is bound to further add to an uneasy situation in rural areas with their already depressed economy.
As Wen told a Cabinet meeting in January: “The country’s unemployment situation is extremely grim.”
Against such a grim background, it defies comprehension that the Ma administration is so keen on integrating with China.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
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