During the course of his recent speech in the National People’s Congress (NPC), Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said the process of Taiwan’s economic integration with China would continue, adding that if Taiwan were to behave, this might eventually become the basis for a free trade agreement.
There was nothing new in Wen’s remark about Taiwan regarding closer political and economic relations. It was vague and lacking in specifics.
For instance, Wen called for “fair and reasonable arrangements” for Taiwan’s participation in international organizations. But there was nothing to suggest how to go about it nor what the scope of Taiwan’s international participation would be.
In the same way, he talked about a formal cessation of hostilities with Taiwan. He didn’t indicate, however, if there would be a formal peace treaty or some other defined mechanism of dialogue or cooperation between the militaries of the two countries.
The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is focusing on the economic aspects of the relationship, and is not too keen to take up the political and military aspects.
This approach is dangerous, because over time the relative weight of China’s economic and political power might become so overwhelming that Taiwan would not have any option but to wind up as another Hong Kong.
It won’t be much fun being in that situation when China is faced with problems such as the serious concern about the adequacy of the US$585 billion stimulus plan China announced in November, as well as its distribution and the level of transparency involved.
Some of the stimulus money is said to be a repackaging of the old spending plans.
Of the overall planned spending, nearly US$175 billion will come from the central government and the rest from banks, investors and local governments.
Without specific guidelines, all this seems to be a questionable arrangement, to say the least.
There will be very little transparency, particularly with regard to spending by local governments and other agencies on pet projects, which will involve corruption and wasteful expenditure. Obviously, much of the stimulus money will go into infrastructure projects like building roads and railways.
Some party elders are worried about this on two levels. First, they would like more spending for social sectors like health and education. Their second worry is the lack of transparency and the consequent need for democratic functioning.
Talking about the priorities of the stimulus package, Du Guang (杜光), a party elder, reportedly said: “You have to look at how to expand demand in the long term … Social spending is more important than building railways, expressways and other basic infrastructure.”
And there is serious concern about corruption, as expressed in a Jan. 20 letter from some elders to Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and the party leadership.
A New York Times report quoted the letter as saying: “We are extremely worried that the privileged and the corrupt will seize this opportunity to fatten themselves … and intensify social conflict.”
They therefore urged the party leadership to free the media and let courts operate without interference to ensure greater transparency and a fairer judicial process.
In other words, the party should take this opportunity of economic slowdown to readjust economic priorities with greater focus on social spending, combined with democracy.
As one elder said: “The greater the difficulties, the greater the need for democracy.”
The letter in a way reaffirmed China’s “Charter 08,” which listed the sad political reality of the country and the need for democratic reforms.
The charter said, in part: “The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a Constitution but no constitutional government. The ruling elite continues to cling to its authoritarian power and fights off any move toward political change.”
This in turn has led to “endemic official corruption … crony capitalism, [and] growing inequality between the wealthy and the poor ... The decline of the current system has reached a point where change is no longer optional.”
But the people of China shouldn’t hold their breath expecting things to change. The chairman of the nominal NPC has categorically rejected any notion that the party might even consider political liberalization.
While addressing the NPC, Standing Committee Chairman Wu Bangguo (吳邦國) warned the legislators that without the Chinese Communist Party in control, China “would be torn by strife and incapable of accomplishing anything.”
Not only did he reject the idea of Western-style multi-party democracy for China, he even argued that China’s one-party rule was superior. And therefore it was imperative that China should maintain “the correct political orientation” laid down by the party.
How the party manages social stability in a country of 1.3 billion people in the midst of growing social unrest from increasing unemployment will be interesting to watch.
Under one-party rule, when there are no legitimate channels of expressing dissent and dissatisfaction, the only conceivable way would be through coercion, fear and control.
Yet, with the current economic slowdown, unemployment is getting worse. Twenty million rural migrants have already lost their jobs in the cities, which is bound to further add to an uneasy situation in rural areas with their already depressed economy.
As Wen told a Cabinet meeting in January: “The country’s unemployment situation is extremely grim.”
Against such a grim background, it defies comprehension that the Ma administration is so keen on integrating with China.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS