Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: Holes in Lee's cross-strait theory

What is it about Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀) that is so bothersome? It is not that he talks total rubbish about cross-strait relations like so many reunificationists in Taiwan. Much of what he says is worth serious attention. Indeed, his argumentation can sometimes seem compelling, as would befit the London-educated barrister he is, but why is it that his case is never proved beyond all reasonable doubt?

In June, in a long interview with the Far Eastern Economic Review Lee gave a clear exposition of his assessment of cross-strait relations. Briefly, it was this: No Chinese leader could accept the loss of Taiwan. But, as a result of Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "localization," Taiwan has drifted very far from China in the years since the ending of martial law. This has brought resolution of the "Taiwan problem" from one of the most important things facing China to the most important. No responsible country should support Taiwan's claim to statehood because to do so would encourage Chinese military expansionism which would destabilize the entire region. It is irresponsible to encourage Taiwanese to think that there is any choice other than unification with China. For them to pursue any other path will result in tragedy. In the event of a war, with the US backing Taiwan and then giving China a hiding, the world would then have to deal with the regional nightmare of a bitter, humiliated and xenophobic China. The only solution is for Taiwan to move closer to China of its own accord and attempt to influence a change in China.

Take these arguments simplistically, and they make up a compelling argument. Much of his thesis rests on facts which any cross-strait watcher must be aware of. Which leads us to only one conclusion based on Lee's theory, and like the good barrister he is, to a hypothesis with only one answer -- unification.

Of course some of Lee's arguments are just plain insulting, his contention for example, that while few Hong Kongers wanted to rejoin China, that they had no choice, in the end, was not detrimental to them in any way. But it is not Lee's logic that fails here, it is the moral viewpoint from which he argues. Lets use a marital breakup as a comparison metaphor: A couple splits up. The woman builds a new life for herself. Her husband sits and broods, turning into an aggressive psychopathic stalker with a fixation on getting back his "lost" wife. Come home on my terms, he shouts waving a gun around and frightening the neighbors as he does so, or suffer the consequences. What do we tell the frightened woman to do? According to Lee's logic she should go home.

Feminists may be angered by the above analogy, believing that it belittles the idea of domestic violence, marital rape, and many other notions. On the contrary, our point here is that in a social situation morals are clear. The husband is a menace, there are laws against the actions he contemplates and rightfully so. Anybody who sought to argue the husband's case would be looked at askance, as himself a moral outcast. Yet this is the essence of Lee's position on Taiwan.

The rest of us would, we hope, recommend in the deranged husband case that he get counseling and if that doesn't work that he be physically restrained. But Lee does not seem to recommend that with China. There is a suggestion that China may change, but no realization that it must change, no understanding that by taking certain Chinese positions for granted, Lee is endorsing a code of behavior that has been held unacceptable among civilized nations for more than 50 years. In the end it is not that what Lee says is untrue, it is that it is morally contemptible.
This story has been viewed 3739 times.