The "Anti-Secession" Law passed with a vote of 2,896 to zero, with two abstentions. One is justified in asking, "Can this possibly be called democracy?" Actually, it's "socialist democracy," as the Chinese communists have labeled it, but of a type that only exists in China.
After years of "moving in the direction of democracy" since the revolution, the decision-making system still exhibits a high degree of unanimity. In fact, the legislative process leading to the passage of the Anti-Secession Law suggests that the decision-making system could even be termed an "absolute unanimity system."
Anyone who has read The Past Doesn't Disappear Like Smoke by Zhang Yihe (章詒和) could divine the original form of this type of decision-making process in the period running from the anti-rightist movement to the Cultural Revolution. It seems like China's fourth-generation leaders remain tethered to the historical model of the first generation.
Although some academics hold that the structure of the Chinese communist hierarchy is not pyramid-shaped but rather consists of concentric circles, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) lies in the center. It controls other political bodies -- naturally including the National People's Congress -- and has a grip on every aspect of society.
The CCP has always maintained that power within the socialist democracy comes from the bottom up, and from the outside in. But after many years of political suppression, if the top of the hierarchy sticks to its guns, what can the bottom of the pile do to change anything? The passage of the Anti-Secession Law is a case in point. During its ratification process, what happened to those academics who had received a Western education in politics? And where were the questions from the capitalist press and magazines? Could it really be that nationalism has galvanized everyone into complete agreement with the ruling class?
These questions may well seem a little naive. But not too long ago an academic in China said, "China has such a huge population, and so many intellectuals, and yet you hardly ever hear a word of opposition. This is not only unfortunate, it is also shameful."
Such voices of opposition are loud and numerous within a capitalist democracy. But anyone who makes such noise in the decision-making system of China has their words censored, and may even be imprisoned or exiled. If this is what we can expect from this "socialist democracy," it's an insult to the very concept of democracy.
But what will be the implications of the law for cross-strait relations. Are they doomed to stay bogged down forever?
During the days of the Cuban missile crisis, US president John Kennedy received a number of letters from Soviet president Nikita Khrushchev. While some were emphatic about the Soviets' willingness to go to war, others were far softer, indicating that there was still room for talks. Kennedy and his team decided to analyze the letters to determine which passages represented the collective opinion of the Soviet Politburo, and which represented Khrushchev's own views. Then Kennedy wrote a reply, responding to the Soviet statements that were more compromising and ignoring the more bellicose sections.
In the end the Cuban missile crisis was brought to a peaceful conclusion. Although there were many factors behind this, the main reason was the willingness on the part of the leaders of the US and the USSR to put aside their hostility, and find common ground. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) would do well to learn from the Kennedy-Khrushchev experience. Otherwise, the current cross-strait situation could well end in war.
Wang Chien-chuang is president ofthe Journalist magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS