The recent debate between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) on the issue of signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China has led to a great deal of discussion throughout society. Indeed, Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) would probably have advertised its surprise victory more widely had celebrations not been cut short by a tragic landslide on Freeway No. 3 close to Keelung.
While the central focus of the Ma-Tsai debate was the ECFA, the key issue underlying almost every talking point was how to deal with China. Will Taiwan adopt an attitude of Taiwanization, Sinification or globalization when defining itself and conducting relations with China? In determining an answer to that question, we need to decide how to view China’s past, present and future.
Although the future is unpredictable, it can still be imagined, planned for and realized. The science of future studies encourages people to develop foresight, but it does not guarantee accuracy. While the power to predict future events may seem unduly abstract, it is an integral part of everyday life, but most people are not accustomed to applying this ability to issues of great importance or matters that lie in the distant future.
People predict the future every day in a very natural way. For example, before leaving home, we all make predictions about the weather and traffic. Only human beings have the ability to simultaneously remember the past, be conscious of the present and predict the future.
However, there are varying viewpoints about these three different ways of viewing time. Some people get stuck in the past, while some make the most of the present and others place all their hopes on the future. These different perspectives lead to differences in cognition and individual opinions. The power of the future is to be found in its ability to appropriately integrate these three concepts of time.
We need to adopt a forward-looking attitude when dealing with China. Although China’s rise to global prominence is a widely recognized geopolitical fact, there are different opinions as to whether this will be peaceful. There are those who say that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is totalitarian in nature, that it detests democracy and that it will never change. These people believe that as long as the CCP is in charge, China must be shunned, while some even say that world peace can only be preserved by opposing China.
Such opinions are the logical result of taking the CCP’s past actions and extending them into the future. The DPP is clearly suspicious of China, an attitude largely based on past experience.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who view things totally in terms of the future and therefore consider the DPP approach to be closed-minded.
Ma’s attitude is to look only at the future, paying no attention to events that have happened in the past in China, and choosing to ignore extremist attitudes China has demonstrated toward Taiwan and the rest of the world.
US psychologists Philip Zimbardo and John Boyd refer to such people as being concerned with a “transcendental future.” They pursue a beautiful, imagined future for which they plan. Such individuals are able to disregard the present and give up on past achievements for that imagined future.
Zimbardo and Boyd believe that some Islamic suicide bombers think like this. They believe in the attainment of a perfect life at some point in the future and consider suicide attacks necessary to facilitate the realization of that vision.
Ma’s lack of memory regarding the past animosity between the KMT and the CCP means that he has positive and optimistic memories of the past. This can be seen in his immense goodwill toward China regardless of the cost.
Ma’s view is that all benefits exist in the future and that all disagreements should be forgotten, to the point that the military has stopped using live ammunition in exercises. He may even see the rise of China as an entirely positive thing.
Unfortunately, it appears as though Ma has moved from one extreme — blocking all deals with China — to another, namely gambling Taiwan’s future on developing a healthy relationship with China. In this context, an ECFA provides an important litmus test for his view of the future. Ultimately, if Ma is unable to deal with such a “soft” issue as an ECFA, China is unlikely to ever trust him to handle “hard” issues like political negotiations?
It is good for a country’s leadership to govern with an eye on the future. However, plans for the future must not be based on subjective or overly optimistic ideas. The past offers us many lessons that we absolutely must learn from. Future power requires in-depth knowledge of history, because the past holds many clues to the future.
Indeed, our current actions only become meaningful when carefully thought as part of a plan for the future, with goals set accordingly. Taiwan would benefit greatly if the ruling and opposition parties, as well as society in general, learned how to make the best use of the future power.
Ji Shun-jie is an assistant professor at Tamkang University’s Graduate Institute of Future Studies.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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