Recently, I visited the Republic of China, Taiwan, and what is officially known as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. The former is still free, the latter less and less so. Lately, Beijing, or “mainland China,” has been bullying both. I went to see why.
In Taiwan I found a society that, painfully and gradually, undid the domination of Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) Nationalist forces, who retreated to Formosa in 1949 and whose Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), also known as the Kuomintang, imposed martial law until 1987.
Today it is a flourishing democracy of 24 million people.
Without exception, everyone I spoke to, from waitresses to tour guides and diplomats to young sailors, expressed understandable pride in their ethnic Chinese heritage, yet insisted they want nothing to do with the Communist-dominated political system of the “mainland.” They are free and want to stay free.
They also know their country’s history, including less salutary episodes, particularly the 228 Incident, a massacre that began on Feb. 28, 1947, metastasizing into a White Terror with tens of thousands killed or imprisoned, many the most highly educated people of their day and most innocent of disloyalty.
Once a taboo subject, this injustice is recalled at Taipei’s 228 Peace Memorial Park. I watched citizens posting notices there remembering specific victims, while reminding passersby of the importance of remaining vigilant in defense of liberty.
In contrast, over on the “mainland,” and only after Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) death in 1976, his successor, Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), proclaimed Mao’s legacy was 70 percent positive and only 30 percent negative, a formula still prescribed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Appallingly, the image of a man responsible for the death of tens of millions of Chinese — dwarfing the genocidal furies of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin combined — remains on that country’s banknotes.
This monstrous Maoist past remains ignored largely because the CCP insists seven themes “shall not be discussed” — universal values, civil society, a free media, civil rights, capitalism, judicial independence and, revealingly, the party’s “historical errors.”
Coupled with those no-nos are five additional things that “shall not be done” — pluralizing the existing “guiding ideology,” privatization, creating a multi-party state or federal system, and providing for a separation of powers within the state.
Given what the Forbidden City forbids, it is obvious why millions of Chinese who identify as Taiwanese or Hong Kongers — not to mention Tibetans, Uyghurs and others — want nothing to do with the authors of these 12 communist Chinese commandments.
Will the “other Chinas” survive? With the Taiwan Strait as a defensive moat, an increasingly professional military and the promise of US intervention if attacked, Taipei’s sovereignty is probably secure.
However, in Hong Kong I sensed a quiet desperation, a premonition of the imminent end of freedom.
Culturally, of course, there is only “one China.” Not a single person I spoke with in Taiwan or Hong Kong doubts it, nor do I. Yet there are at least two Chinese states.
In 1992, cross-strait discussions were held, supposedly reaching a “consensus” on this very point, both sides agreeing there is “one China,” while recognizing “two systems.” Comforting, perhaps, but no accord really exists. Beijing has repeatedly proclaimed it plans to reclaim the “renegade province” of Taiwan, through military force if need be.
While Taiwanese hope the ambiguity of today’s “status quo” will prevail, they all know Beijing is striving to undermine their independence.
Why? Because Taiwan represents what a China freed from one-party rule can be: an open, commercially successful, technologically sophisticated country with much to offer, enriching humankind as Chinese civilization has done for many centuries.
However, for “mainland China” to follow the Taiwanese path would require ending the CCP’s dictatorship and its more than 83 million members are not likely to oblige. Democratization would scupper their privileges, expose their corruption and require an accounting for the vile crimes, historical and contemporary, perpetrated by and in the name of the party.
Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at the 13th National People’s Congress on March 11 amended the country’s constitution, enthroning himself for life, copycatting Russian President Vladimir Putin, the KGB man in the Kremlin.
Unaccountably, Karl Marx never predicted the current dictatorships of “Communist” emperors as a stage in history.
What should Canada do? Beijing is certainly not the only odious regime the country deals with, but do commercial engagements require the abandonment of democratic Taiwan?
An answer exists in the Oct. 13, 1970, joint communique establishing diplomatic relations between the two countries.
In part it reads: “The Chinese Government reaffirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China. The Canadian Government takes note of this position of the Chinese Government.”
Read that again. All Canada’s diplomats did was “take note” of Beijing’s contention that Taiwan is a part of its territory. They did not agree it was, not then, nor since. Canada is quite free to engage with Taiwan however it wishes.
Be they liberals, conservatives, or new democrats, Canadian politicians often speak of promoting “Canadian values” — supporting democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and human rights.
Yet they face powers and principalities deploying considerable geopolitical and geoeconomic leverage, all orchestrated to gutter the liberal-democratic principles so fundamental to the survival of Western civilization.
What is to be done? Rather than kowtow to Mammon’s present-day minions, I would say Canada must stand with those who share its values. Taiwan does.
Lubomyr Luciuk is a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada. Although he traveled as a guest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the opinions expressed here are his own.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs