At a celebration of the 20th anniversary of the New Tide faction of the Democratic Progressive Party on Saturday, a number of faction members spoke out on the need to reach out to Mainlanders.
Liang Wen-chieh (
That the faction is considering these questions should stem the too often heard claim that the DPP is committed to manipulating the ethnic question to win elections. It is the pan-blues, trading on fears of the "ethnic" minorities, that have always been the most resolute practitioners of that electoral black art.
But we should welcome the debate that New Tide, hopefully, has opened -- it very seriously needs to be held. We assume that, resent the Mainlanders as they might for their 50-year ascendency, the majority of pan-greens do not advocate ethnic cleansing, ie, the forcible expulsion of Mainlanders to China. Indeed it is much to Taiwan's credit that while the nation's ethnic divisions are often called bitter, there has been a lack anywhere in the political spectrum of this kind of bigotry. Nor have the pan-greens shown any interest in less vicious but also generally frowned-upon measures such as making eligibility to vote dependent on passing a test in a "local" language -- ie something other than Mandarin. For a place with "bitter" ethnic conflicts, Taiwan is still tolerant.
That this country is not the former Yugoslavia, however, does not mean that there is no need for better integration if Taiwan is to emerge from its colonial past and become a nation in any substantial way. New Tide is sensibly asking how Taiwan might reach out to Mainlanders, so that they can feel part of this new nation, rather than alienated from it -- as their own political leaders have for so long taught them to be. Since we have no choice but to live together, we must seek a modus vivendi on which all sides can agree. This will inevitably mean all sides sacrificing some of their sacred cows and overcoming elements of bigotry and rejectionism. Where, asks New Tide, do we start?
There can be no definite answer at this time. The destination is known but there is no map. Indeed, in many ways we have not even surveyed the topography. Call us Pollyannas, but we suspect that if such a survey were held -- not just of attitudes and identities, but also of the honest reasons why these attitudes are held or identities felt to be important -- we might find that much of what seems so intractable might disappear. Break the perceived link between Taiwanese consciousness and Hoklo supremacism, for instance, and Mainlanders will be found to identify with China less than is thought.
What is needed is good faith on both sides, and rigorous self-policing for the kind of attitudes that vitiate rapprochement -- especially bigotry, and paying lip-service to stereotypes. This is hard enough for the pan-greens, given the historical chips on their shoulders. It is doubly hard for the pan-blues, since their leaders have a vested interest in making sure that such a rapprochement does not take place. Nevertheless there is one place to start, as we have pointed out before, and that is in the concept of Taiwan as a refuge from China. That, at least, is something Hakka, Hoklo and Mainlanders all have in common.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS