Wed, Sep 04, 2002 page8

• Taiwan's options vis a vis China

  • By Sushil Seth
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  That President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has earned Beijing's ire is nothing new.

  His predecessor, Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), was subjected to all sorts of name-calling for suggesting that Taiwan and China had "special state-to-state relations." Subsequently, during the 2000 presidential elections, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji (朱鎔基) warned of dire consequences if Taiwan were to elect Chen. Earlier, in the mid-1990s, Beijing conducted military exercises in the Taiwan Strait to frighten Taipei from holding its first direct presidential election. But both in 1996 and 2000, Bei-jing's threats proved counter-productive. The elections were duly held, favoring the candidates frowned upon by Beijing.

  Against this background, Taipei would be on strong ground to simply ignore China's new warnings such as this statement by a spokesman: "We seriously warn Taiwan splittist forces not to wrongly judge the situation, to immediately stop the horse at the precipice and to stop all splittist activities."

  The gist of Chen's controversial Aug. 3 statement, though, is nothing new. He was simply stating the reality that there is "one country on each side" of the Tai-wan Strait; with Taiwan and China being separate political and sovereign entities. But it also contained a new and significant element suggesting that Taiwan should consider passing a referendum law. In this way, its own people, and not China, would be the arbiter of its fate.

  On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with such a proposition. But Beijing believes that Taiwan's fate is already determined as part of China. Its only future is "unification."

  By raising the referendum issue, Chen is trying to shape the nation's future political agenda -- to forge a national consensus on Taiwan's political identity. At present, though, the question of passing a referendum law is academic because the government lacks a majority in the legislature. But this is likely to become an important issue in Taiwan's domestic polity, much to China's great annoyance.

  Taiwan is in a terrible predicament. Beijing has a veto of sorts on its future. It is thwarting its international profile. And it is refusing to hold talks on cross-strait relations unless Taiwan would accept its provincial status. In the meantime, the lure of investment and markets has a strong pull for Taiwan's business community. But its people, at the same time, are averse to being absorbed by China. Beijing offers them the Hong Kong model of autonomy to accommodate their difference. However, there are not many takers in Taiwan for this.

  There are reasons for their opposition. Unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan is not a colony. It has its own elected government and institutions. It is, therefore, not disposable like the former British colony. Its 23 million people would ideally like to determine their own future. This is where Chen's referendum proposal fits in.

  Besides, Hong Kong's five-year autonomy experience is not much of a recommendation. Despite the promise of progressive democracy, Hong Kong still has a nominated (for all practical purposes) chief executive. Its legislature is toothless, without popular representation. Its judiciary is subject to Beijing's direction. Its relatively independent bureaucracy is being sidelined and punished. The newly appointed "Cabinet" will simply supersede the bureaucracy at its higher level. Beijing is also scornful of the "one country, two systems" formula; with more emphasis on its "one country" component. Taiwan would, therefore, hate to emulate Hong Kong's example.

  Taiwan is not without options. China's trump card is its threat of forcible unification. This is quite unsettling for Taiwan's future. But it is not easily translatable into action and is full of pitfalls for China. It is based on the belief that China can, at will, attack and annex Taiwan. For this to work, though, Taipei has to believe in that threat and accept the "inevitable." However, there is no evidence to suggest this is the case. True, whenever China flexes its muscles Taiwan's stock markets take a dive. But that is only a temporary phenomenon.

  China's military threat is really part of its psychological warfare. But to make it look effective, Beijing has to back it with military maneuvers and deployment. This is not to underrate the military threat, because China's game of Russian roulette can easily slip out of control and cause real havoc.

  Even on a purely military level, though, it is not that China can simply walk over Taiwan. It might not be a military giant but it certainly is not a pussycat either. It has the military capacity to make it very costly for China, if Beijing were to mount an invasion of the island. It is not simply the act of invading Taiwan. That, by itself, will be a gigantic task of putting up an armada with large amphibious capacity, while being vulnerable to enemy interdiction and counterattack. If this were ever to succeed (a big if), there would be the follow-up task of securing the nation, requiring a large occupying force with assured supply lines across the Taiwan Strait.

  And when one considers that the US will not be sitting idle through it all, China's nightmare can easily be imagined. After all, US President George W. Bush is committed to defending Taiwan against a Chinese invasion with "whatever it takes." Taiwan is increasingly being integrated into the US defense strategy, including a nuclear response. Even a blockade of Taiwan to create panic and strangulate its economy most likely would invite US intervention.

  Washington wouldn't like Taipei to declare formal independence. But its relatively low-key response to Chen's statement (compared to the administration of former US president Bill Clinton) suggests that Taipei has some leeway in the matter.

  Another fallacy governing Beijing's relations with Taiwan, is the belief that the Chinese Communist Party and China are inter-changeable. In other words, they are one and the same. Therefore, its communist rulers set the terms of Taiwan's interaction with China in perpetuity. The party's eternal rule of the country is a given in these circumstances. But this is a tall claim to make.

  There are many indications that communist rule is burdened with all sorts of contradictions. It is an edifice built on a narrow base, and might not last all that long. As Ian Buruma wrote in the New York Times: "In China, there is no institutional way for people to protest, and that is why China could easily explode one day ? " In that case, Taipei can bide its time to negotiate another day.

  Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    US to deliver 10 new F-16s, source says

  • 2

    Taiwan blacklists Huawei and SMIC

  • 3

    Ma Ying-jeou’s forum speech regrettable, MAC says

  • 4

    Coco Gauff falls in Berlin after French Open victory

  • 5

    Costa Rica sent officials to train in Taipei, report says