Ever since Taiwan's democratization process began to allow the public expression of support forTaiwan independence, the unification with China versus independence dispute has gradually polarized the country.
In such a political climate, people take either unification or independence as the only conceivable framework -- and even as an ultimate value, as if all other values can be compromised or even sacrificed. Pro-unification and pro-independence ideologies often have a fundamental impact on public policy.
There are many reasons why this climate exists, but Taiwan's democratization and pluraliza-tion, and China's persistent military threat remain the two most important. China perceives Taiwan's democracy as a political threat, which is reflected in its military threats against Taiwan. The majority of people in Taiwan are happy to see democratization and pluralization continue. When it comes to China's perception of a threat, wisdom and patience are needed. At the same time, we should also understand that there are many other important issues that deserve attention. We should not let this one dispute pull the wool over our eyes.
More often than not, people who take independence or unification as an ultimate value can only see the immediate present and lack a long-term historical perspective. As a source of reference for both camps, I wish to expose four important blind spots.
The first is a lack of historical perspective. Unification-independence disputes throughout history have shared one common phenomenon: both sides overlook the fact that neither independence nor unification are irreversible. Two countries may unify and become one, like the two Germanys did. Likewise, one country may split and become many, like the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia did. Some other countries split and reunify and split again, like Mongolia and China.
There is no guarantee that currently unified countries will not split into two or more countries in the future.
By the same logic, the fact that certain countries are independent now does not guarantee that they will not unite with others in the future. Taiwan and China and North and South Korea are cases in point. Considered in this light, the fact that Taiwan is currently a de facto independent state does not mean it cannot possibly unify with China in the future. Nor does Taiwan's becoming a de jure independent nation preclude it from unification. Similarly, even if China and Taiwan were to unite, it would not mean that Taiwan could never become independent in the future.
The second blind spot is ignoring global trends toward democracy. Since the East European communist countries and the Soviet Union embraced democracy and abandoned totalitarianism in the late 1980s, democracy has become a worldwide political trend. Many totalitarian systems have been abandoned and democratic systems embraced instead.
Taiwan has also jumped onto this democracy bandwagon. China has not, unfortunately. This is perhaps the crux of the problem of the unification-independence dispute. One important argument raised by Taiwan independence advocates is that they are not willing to give up a democratic system they have fought for several decades to achieve. This is a point the Chinese leadership has never been able to grasp or been willing to accept.
If democracy is a global trend worth safeguarding, then a democratic China will become strongly attractive to Taiwan and more Taiwanese will consider supporting unification with China. At the same time, strangely enough, a democratic China will respect the will of the Taiwanese people and stop worrying about whether Taiwan is independent. This argument can be extended to Tibet, Xinjiang and the like.
Let's take, for example, Canada and Quebec. Every once in a while, we see the residents of Quebec calling for a referendum on independence. In the eyes of democratic countries like Canada, there is no big deal about such calls. Nor has Canada ever used military force to threaten Quebecois in the hope of preventing independence.
After several referendums, however, Quebec has not become independent from Canada -- an indication of the strong gravitational pull these two have for most voters. Seen in this light, lasting peace for Taiwan does not depend on a decision over the unification-independence issue, but on China's democratization.
If China seriously hopes for "peaceful unification," then its democratization is the only path, apart from Taiwan's surrender. Also, independence or unification will no longer be a problem after China democratizes. Despite their ideological differences, therefore, the pro-unification and pro-independence camps in Taiwan can work together in the direction of one specific goal: helping China to democratize. At the same time, if the Chinese leadership comes to understand the global trend towards democracy and gains a little more foresight, then its most important "historic mission" will lie not in unification, but in China's democratization.
The third blind spot is about values. Amid the fierce dispute, the two camps easily take unification or independence as their ultimate concern and yet overlook other important values, including respect for human rights (not just for the Taiwanese and Chinese but for all human beings), environmental and ecological conservation, safeguarding the rule of law and internationally, and so on.
The independence and unification camps should think about and explain to each other what the purpose of independence would be or why, on the other hand, we should unify with China. If we sacrifice these important values in the process of achieving independence or unification, will the resulting country still be worth loving?
The last blind spot results from ignoring the trend toward globalization. Amid the fierce dispute, many people have overlooked the new global political climate which has been gradually taking shape: the expansion of super-governmental organizations (SGOs) and multi-national corporations. SGOs like the WTO have unprecedented power that goes beyond that of traditional nation-state governments. Taiwan and China, for example, both take a dim view of having to give up part of their traditional sovereign rights for the sake of WTO entry.
On the other hand, more and more multi-national corporations have each accumulated more wealth than any one of almost half of the world's countries. Such colossal wealth gives the multi-nationals stronger political and economic influence. They can indirectly influence the policies of super-governmental organizations like the WTO. They can also directly influence the economy and politics of the countries in which they invest. CEOs of these giant multi-nationals were invited to a recent UN economic summit, where they were treated as equals to states leaders such as presidents and prime ministers -- an alarming sign that deserves attention.
These problems, plus the question of what role we should play in a globalized economy, all deserve the deep concern of both Taiwan and China. What these SGOs and multi-nationals do will have a deep impact on the life and future of all global denizens.
Unfortunately, such important issues are often ignored in cross-strait disputes. While we continue to argue over the traditional notion of nationhood and wouldn't necessarily even mind going to war to defend it, the new global trends are quietly eating away at the sovereign power of traditional nation-states to the extent of changing their very nature.
It is not that I am totally against the trend toward globalization trend. Rather, I would like to remind the countries disadvantaged by this trend -- including Taiwan and China -- that we should be concerned about many of the issues regarding globalization. They should handle the issues cautiously, rather than embrace them blindly. No matter which side wins in the unification-independence dispute, the price for ignoring the trend toward globalization will far exceed anything imaginable by either side.
Raising the above four blind spots does not mean the unification-independence dispute is not important. At the very least, the dispute is inevitable without Chinese democratization. The purpose of this article is to remind both camps -- as well as all policy-makers and citizens of both Taiwan and China -- that they should look far and wide. There is a bigger world outside the unification-independence divide.
Chi Chun-huei is an associate professor in the department of public health, Oregon State University.
Translated by Francis Huang
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS