Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

Today’s pro-green English daily carries an editorial response by a former AIT rep panning an earlier piece which offered a creative and interesting analogy between cold war status quo realities, East and West:

[color=#404080]Nat Bellocchi[/color]

Re: [color=#004040]Taipei Times[/color] 1/18/10
Gilley’s ‘Finlandization’ is wrong
Nat Bellocchi
taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003463745

[color=#400080]The relations between Taiwan, the US and China have given rise to many an academic analysis. This is understandable and even laudable: The network of relations is complex and is open to various interpretations and insights. Many past treatises have made valuable contributions to the understanding of developments between the three countries.

However, once every so often an academic publishes an analysis that is so far removed from reality that it would be dismissed out of hand for its lack of understanding and its outright naivite. Bruce Gilley’s article, titled “Not So Dire Straits” — published in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs (January/February 2010) — is such a work.

Gilley’s basic thesis is that the present “rapprochement” between Taiwan and China opens the way for the “Finlandization” of Taiwan, and for the US to allow Taiwan to move from the present US strategic orbit towards China’s sphere of influence. Gilley’s misplaced assumption is that this process will somehow lead to democratization in China.

Gilley’s misconceptions are multiple, so in a brief essay like this one can only touch on a few major points.

To start with, the perception that “Finlandization” enjoyed “wide support in Finland at the time.” The question is: did the Finnish people have much of a choice, with the Russian gun pointed at their head?

A second general point is one of historical accuracy: Gilley writes that in 1949 “Taiwan and mainland China became separate political entities.” The truth of the matter is that Taiwan — as a Japanese colony — had been a separate entity for some 50 years, while before that period the influence of the Chinese imperial governments on the island was minimal at best.

The problem arose when the defeated Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was driven out of China and landed in Taiwan, treating it like occupied territory. It is also incorrect to say “most of the international community came to accept Beijing’s claim to territorial sovereignty over Taiwan.” This was only the case for pro-Beijing regimes of the likes of Zimbabwe and the Sudan. The US and other Western nations only “noted” or “acknowledged” Beijing’s claims, but took the position that it remained an unresolved issue, and that the island’s future needed to be determined in accordance with the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty.

But the most serious fallacy of the article is that it posits that a Chamberlain-like appeasement of China on the Taiwan issue will somehow democratize and pacify a rising China rather than embolden it. That is a fundamental misconception: Repressive regimes are never mollified by concessions; it only increases their appetite.

It would be a fundamental error to sacrifice the hard-won achievements of a vibrant and democratic Taiwan and let it drift into an uncertain, fuzzy “principled neutrality.”

Gilley wants us to believe that there is a distinction between this “Finland-style” status and “cowering acquiescence” as he calls it. An authoritarian power like China is hardly likely to be bothered by such finessing, and will remove any opposition to its rule; Tibet and East Turkestan are rather illustrative examples.

Gilley also argues that China’s claims to Taiwan may be less motivated [by] “nationalism and … a broader national discourse of humiliation and weakness,” and more by a geostrategic rationale: By virtue of its location, Taiwan has strategic importance, and by bringing it into its sphere of influence it could enhance its ability to project its naval power, and thereby exert its influence in the Western Pacific.

On this point he is correct: Taiwan has tremendous strategic importance, not only for Japan and South Korea, but also for US interests in the East Asia and Pacific region. And this is precisely the reason why it was most wise for the US to stand by Taiwan in recently offering it anti-missile technology.

From the perspective of the Taiwanese, a drift in China’s direction would mean a loss of the freedom and democracy they worked so hard to achieve. US credibility around the world — and particularly in East Asia — does depend on its adherence to the basic principles for which we stand. Allowing a free and democratic Taiwan to slide into the sphere of influence of an authoritarian China is not acceptable.

Thus, instead of “Finlandization” of Taiwan, the US should pursue a policy of stronger engagement with Taiwan by helping the country defend itself against a belligerent neighbor, and by signing a free-trade agreement to strengthen US economic and political ties with that democratic nation. Only by bringing Taiwan into the international family of nations, can real stability in East Asia be achieved. [/color]

[color=#BF0000]Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.[/color]

Article:

[color=#404040]A second general point is one of historical accuracy: Gilley writes that in 1949 “Taiwan and mainland China became separate political entities.” The truth of the matter is that Taiwan - as a Japanese colony - had been a separate entity for some 50 years, while before that period the influence of the Chinese imperial governments on the island was minimal at best.[/color]

Taiwan was ceded by Japan to first become a part of the ROC in 1947 and only became a seperate political entity from the mainland once again in 1949, due to a popular revolution against KMT rule there.

Not to imply that the PRC will morph and shed its authoritarian regime status as did the former Soviet Union - to indirectly provide Taiwan an opening for greater independence as occured in the case for Finland … by waiting out Soviet intimidation.

Mr Bellocchi comes down way too hard on the use of this interesting analogy. The two confined national identity cases are parallel in time. He’s right that China won’t submit to democracy or go away the way the Soviet Union did. Still, Taiwan has mostly suffered much from a similar fate to Finland … with the need to bide time for a better outcome.

Original "Finlandization’ piece:
[color=#4000BF]Council on Foriegn Affairs[/color] [US]
Not So Dire Straits
[color=#BF0000]How the Finlandization of Taiwan Benefits U.S. Security[/color]
Bruce Gilley

foreignaffairs.com/articles/ … re-straits

[color=#800040]Summary: As Taipei drifts further into Beijing’s sphere of influence, the United States must decide whether to continue arming Taiwan as a bulwark against a rising China or step back to allow the Taiwanese people to determine their own future.[/color]

Well, OK Nat, that header is certainly anomolous!

2

There are many things deeply wrong with Gilley’s article. First of all, his facts are wrong. Not that many Chinese tourists have shown up and the students here from China are so far, on short-term visits. There are a number of other errors. Gilley also doesn’t seem to understand how deeply out of touch Ma is with mainstream Taiwanese views of identity and the possibility of unification with China.

Anthony Chiang had a far better piece in the Apple Daily a few weeks ago. His first point was that Finland accommodated the Soviet Union for the purpose of keeping its sovereignty. Ma Ying-jiu however is accommodating China so that Taiwan will lose its sovereignty. Secondly, the Soviet Union always recognized Finland as country. Third, what is happening in Taiwan is not Finlandization It’s Hong Kong-ization.

3

One could go on and on with how awful this piece is. As Bellocchi notes, it is totally unreal.

One reason it seems creative and interesting is because it carefully shaves away the international context to create an artificial world. For example, read it closely – japan is mentioned only once.

4

[color=#004000]Feiren[/color]:

“[color=#400080]Anthony Chiang had a far better piece in the Apple Daily a few weeks ago. His first point was that Finland accommodated the Soviet Union for the purpose of keeping its sovereignty. Ma Ying-jiu however is accommodating China so that Taiwan will lose its sovereignty.[/color]”

Firstly, thanks for your reply. I mostly hope to get some discussion going on the topic and do find the general notion of an analogy between Taiwan’s and Finland’s experiences with an extremely intimidating communist ‘Big Brother’ neighbor … to be an engaging and at least hopeful one, even if not valid in the context Gilley’s duly panned Foreign Affairs piece.

While many folks seem to agree here on Ma’s undeclared intentions, the associated accusations against him do counter his own open claims … to be protecting the long-term interests of Taiwan as a self-determining entity. Truly enough, cross-strait tensions have been markedly reduced during his term, which is certainly a good development.

I would offer an adjustment to the key point of your remarks above. Ma may be accomodating China to the point of risking Taipei’s sovereignty [vis-a-vis China’s standing claim] but not for such an intentional purpose. Rather, it’s over the lack of diplomatic maturity within his ‘next-generation’ administration. Why else would he be going after whatever weapons can be made available?

And yes, I also remember the KMT blocking all Chen adminstration aims to garner new military hardware. There lies another commonality between the politbureau and the ‘ruling’ KMT in that they both tend to wield power selfishly through intimidation, instead of really earning it through popular respect. Unfortunately, that’s precisely how/where a window gets opened for China to eventually pick up where the KMT’s actually heading … to leave Taiwan off, at present, but I would still argue that it’s about foolishness in trusting Beijing, the consistant arrogance of their management of power and then just plain stupiduty, not … bad intentions.

Sorry if that comes off like a non sequitur!

Thanks too for the reference to Anthony Chang and his original Apple Daily editorial. It’s good to know where these bright ideas are really coming from. Tried to find it on the net, but couldn’t so am assuming that it was only published as a Chinese language piece.

5

Here’s the Chiang piece. Yes it was in Chinese.

[quote]
While many folks seem to agree here on Ma’s undeclared intentions, the associated accusations against him do counter his own open claims … to be protecting the long-term interests of Taiwan as a self-determining entity. Truly enough, cross-strait tensions have been markedly reduced during his term, which is certainly a good development.[/quote]

Ma’s declared intentions are pretty clear. He states that the purpose of the KMT is the ultimate unification of Taiwan and China, that Taiwan and China are part of a greater ‘Chinese People/Race’ (Zhonghua minzu) and that the next decade will be key to the prospects for unification (he then claimed to have added an ‘s’ to 'decade). He has not, to my knowledge, unequivocally supported the Taiwanese people’s right to self-determination, and his consistent outspoken opposition to referendums of any kind does not inspire confidence in his support for self-determination. I think he does indeed genuinely believe that he is protecting the long-term interests of Taiwan, but the problems is that he thinks those interests lie in unification with a better deal than Hong Kong obtained.

More importantly though, one can’t really rely on what politicians like Ms say, you have to watch what they do. Ma’s policies and actions so far to my mind leave little doubt that he attempting to open door so that Taiwan’s economy, educational system, and media will become completely dependent on Chinese interests. Then political talks on unification will begin. I hope I’m wrong, and the Taiwanese people may decide to turn this clown out on his ear in 2012 but we shall see.

As for tensions with China, you say ‘they have been reduced’. Your sentence is passive. Who reduced the tensions? Who created the tensions in the first place. As my friend Vorko often points out, China chose to create tensions and now has chosen to reduce them (although it has not reduced the thousands or missiles pointing at Taiwan). Taiwan’s aspirations for a separate identity have never threatened China in any way. China chooses to be ‘provoked’, to increase or reduce tensions, and to have the feelings of the Chinese people hurt. Taiwan is passive in this process.

6

[ul]Taiwan was ceded by Japan to first become a part of the ROC in 1947 and only became a separate political entity from the mainland once again in 1949, due to a popular revolution against KMT rule there. [/ul]

Incorrect. Taiwan was never ceded to the ROC and remains, to this day, a territory whose status is undetermined.

7

He has explicitly stated unification will not happen while he is in office, has said that it it is unlikely “in our lifetimes”, and has accepted the principle that any change in Taiwan’s status must be decided by the 23 million people on Taiwan. Actually this position was the unavoidable consequence of democratization which limited the “political community” to Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen, and Mazu.

8

[quote=“Mawvellous”][quote=“Feiren”]

Ma’s declared intentions are pretty clear. He states that the purpose of the KMT is the ultimate unification of Taiwan and China, that Taiwan and China are part of a greater ‘Chinese People/Race’ (Zhonghua minzu) and that the next decade will be key to the prospects for unification (he then claimed to have added an ‘s’ to 'decade). He has not, to my knowledge, unequivocally supported the Taiwanese people’s right to self-determination, and his consistent outspoken opposition to referendums of any kind does not inspire confidence in his support for self-determination. I think he does indeed genuinely believe that he is protecting the long-term interests of Taiwan, but the problems is that he thinks those interests lie in unification with a better deal than Hong Kong obtained.
[/quote]

He has explicitly stated unification will not happen while he is in office, has said that it it is unlikely “in our lifetimes”, and has accepted the principle that any change in Taiwan’s status must be decided by the 23 million people on Taiwan. Actually this position was the unavoidable consequence of democratization which limited the “political community” to Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen, and Mazu.[/quote]

He has not been clear on whether that includes his second term in office. Moreover, while actual unification might not happen “in our lifetime”, he could commit Taiwan to a timetable or framework for unification as part of the fictional ‘peace treaty’ he wants to negotiate with China and he has never said how the people of Taiwan would decide the future of Taiwan. Would it be directly through a referendum? Ratified by the Legislature? Agreed to by the directly-elected president of Taiwan without ratification by the people or the Legislature?

There are many, many hedges in his assurances, and as I said before, one needs to look at the record of what politicians have done and what they are doing now. Ma has been on the wrong side of history for his entire career (opposed lifting martial law, opposed direct presidential elections, opposes referendums, believes that 2-28 was the result of ‘misunderstandings’ etc). The fact is that he is creating the conditions for unification by making Taiwan as dependent on China as possible. We will have a much better idea in a year or two after the money starts flowing from China.

9

[quote=“Feiren”]

He has not been clear on whether that includes his second term in office. Moreover, while actual unification might not happen “in our lifetime”, he could commit Taiwan to a timetable or framework for unification as part of the fictional ‘peace treaty’ he wants to negotiate with China and he has never said how the people of Taiwan would decide the future of Taiwan. Would it be directly through a referendum? Ratified by the Legislature? Agreed to by the directly-elected president of Taiwan without ratification by the people or the Legislature?

There are many, many hedges in his assurances, and as I said before, one needs to look at the record of what politicians have done and what they are doing now. Ma has been on the wrong side of history for his entire career (opposed lifting martial law, opposed direct presidential elections, opposes referendums, believes that 2-28 was the result of ‘misunderstandings’ etc). The fact is that he is creating the conditions for unification by making Taiwan as dependent on China as possible. We will have a much better idea in a year or two after the money starts flowing from China.[/quote]

I believe he has been clear that it includes both terms in office. He has also said that any changes in Taiwan’s status must be decided by the majority of the Taiwanese people, and that the will of the majority must be accepted. This is very significant. I spoke to a high-ranking DPP official in the Chen administration who said he was very pleased that the KMT had accepted this principle and thought it was a a major achievement of the DPP.

Ma has not always been on the wrong side of history. He did a good job investigating corrupt politicians as justice minister, so good that Lee Teng-hui decided to move him. He may of been right about direct presidential elections, after all the DPP were also opposed for a while when they thought that they would be unlikely to win a presidential election.

10

He may have said that, but for him this could well mean that it will be a KMT party decision (to be carried out according to the wishes of the Chairman) as the electorate installed the party as incumbents by ‘popular majority’. We all know that Ma (and his China puppeteers) strongly oppose the use of referenda in Taiwan, as the majority might actually vote against the issue at hand! He may well have purchased a degree from Harvard but that does not mean that he is necesserily educated in the ways of truth and justice, as might be expected from an alumnus of a grand American law faculty (at least it’s not a Harvard MBA, when you’d just know he’s full of crap).

Of course, when it came to an investigation of his own corruption, he wriggled and squirmed and side stepped and ducked and blamed others and pretended it was a miscommunication and so on. Well done, the Teflon Horse. On the other hand, when it came to a trial of his sworn political enemy, all due process went out the window and Chen was thrown into solitary for life, essentially, and would have been executed if it could have been done so without making him a martyr: hardly even-handed justice.

11

Fascinating the differences in views.

From where I sit Ma appears to be making all the right noises to placate China and ensure the well being of Taiwanese interests on the mainland.

The majority of Chen supporters remind me of the great unwashed / uneducated in the Philippines and should largely be ignored, they will IMHO do more harm for their own cause than good.

Taiwan’s surest way to long term success is to allow China to believe in its sovereignty whilst ensuring they remain as defacto independent as possible.

Whilst many of us believe the HK model to be the ideal in reality this cannot be allowed to happen. By ceding trading rights and economic preference to Chineses interests Ma can ensure ongoing manufacturing and trading for Taiwanese people in China.

Chinese culture is open to ambiguity and a “not in this lifetime” approach will be enough to appease them. What is the better option? Even Chen discovered that if you push too hard the US will be forced to back away, and to be fair what use is a superpower in decline as a protector for generations to come?

12

No, I don’t think that will happen.

The opposition to referenda is of course opposition to a referendum on independence.

Well, he was cleared of all charges. Personally, I don’t think he is corrupt. This has been discussed before on the forum anyway.

13

[quote=“Edgar Allen”]
Chinese culture is open to ambiguity and a “not in this lifetime” approach will be enough to appease them. What is the better option? Even Chen discovered that if you push too hard the US will be forced to back away, and to be fair what use is a superpower in decline as a protector for generations to come?[/quote]

The problem is that any ambiguity immediately leads to green accusations of a sell-out.

14

I do reckon that Taiwan will end up Finlandized in the sense that the Chinese won’t overrun the place but the Taiwan government will have to adjust its foreign policy. Unless the US decides to be much more assertive with China that much is inevitable.

On the upside though Finlandization had a pretty dire effect inside Finland - movies were banned for being anti Soviet for example and I think that won’t happen in Taiwan - actually the PRC doesn’t have that sort of control even in Hong Kong.

Of course Finlandization is something the US should try to avoid - the problem with the Gilley piece is that he seems to think it is a good thing.

This is scary too

That paragraph right there sums up why I don’t trust liberals with foreign policy.

15

[quote=“Edgar Allen”]Fascinating the differences in views.

From where I sit Ma appears to be making all the right noises to placate China and ensure the well being of Taiwanese interests on the mainland.
[/quote]

He’s not just making noises. He’s acting to allow Chinese business interests to dominate the Taiwanese economy in the near future and to allow even more Taiwanese investment in China. Taiwanese investment in China not only has impeded Taiwan’s economic progress, but also puts groups like Want Want (now owners of the China Times group’s newspapers, TV stations, and magazines) deeply in China’s pocket.

[quote]The majority of Chen supporters remind me of the great unwashed / uneducated in the Philippines and should largely be ignored, they will IMHO do more harm for their own cause than good.

Taiwan’s surest way to long term success is to allow China to believe in its sovereignty whilst ensuring they remain as defacto independent as possible.[/quote]

I’m not sure what Chen supporters have to do with much since there are so few of them these days. But if you are talking about people who think Taiwan should remain separate from China permanently and would support independence without China’s missiles pointing at them, you are in fact looking at a very wide spectrum of society withe substantial support in the civil service, the business community, academia as well as among the working class and farmers. You deeply misunderstand Taiwanese soceity if you think these views are limited to dudes who drive around in blue trucks and chew betel nut.

[quote]Whilst many of us believe the HK model to be the ideal in reality this cannot be allowed to happen. By ceding trading rights and economic preference to Chineses interests Ma can ensure ongoing manufacturing and trading for Taiwanese people in China.
[/quote]

Some people in the business community may think this, but many many others disagree. Hong Kong is deeply unacceptable to most Taiwanese. Maybe that’s your point though–it would be great if Taiwan was like Hong Kong but that’s politically impossible. For all its legislative fights and gangster politicians, I’ll take Taiwan and its substantive freedoms over the business oligarchy that runs things in Hong Kong.

[quote
Chinese culture is open to ambiguity and a “not in this lifetime” approach will be enough to appease them. What is the better option? Even Chen discovered that if you push too hard the US will be forced to back away, and to be fair what use is a superpower in decline as a protector for generations to come?[/quote]

I disagree. Chinese culture is very much about the exercise of power. Ambiguity is a strategy for the weak and is not respected by the strong. China will not be appeased and is already demanding that the Ma administration hurry up and start political talks. China changed its tune greatly and became much more accommodating after the Taiwanese elected Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. When it found that its threats against Taiwan didn’t work, it started making them through the US.

16

One difference is that Russia actually recognized Finland’s sovereignty.

17

Does anyone have access to Gilley’s article?

18

[color=#004080]Vorkosigan[/color]:

“[color=#800000]Taiwan was never ceded to the ROC and remains, to this day, a territory whose status is undetermined.[/color]”

Well, this can of worms is obviously the source of highly contentious debate and remains subject to interpretaion, for which an internationally recognized decision would help agreat deal, whether or not parties on either side of the strait would actually pay heed.

I did get the year wrong. It was a 1945 event, not one of 1947 when the Nationalists first came to enforce their claims over the island. I am not really trying to make a case either way here, but tend to accept that Taiwan had no inherent claim to independent ‘sovereignty’ as a former Japanese colony at the close of WWII.

Re: [color=#400040]Wikipedia[/color]
Retrocession Day
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocession_Day

‘[color=#404080]When the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II, General Rikichi Andō, governor-general of Taiwan and commander-in-chief of all Japanese forces on the island, signed an instrument of surrender and handed it over to General Chen Yi of the Kuomintang (KMT) military to complete the official turnover in Taipei on October 25, 1945. Chen Yi proclaimed that day to be “Retrocession Day of Taiwan”. Taiwan has been governed by the Republic of China since.[/color]’

Frankly though, I find the DDP’s assumptions of automatic sovereignty for the immigrant Chinese population here, because of a void following Japanese withdrawl, hard to swallow. The genuine native [aboriginal] point of view gets completely undermined. It wasn’t exactly all one big happy family at the time. It was a population dominated by Chinese migrants who then and often still seem to believe in their own primacy.

Re: [color=#400080]Wikipedia[/color]
Treaty of Shimonoseki [1895]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki

‘[color=#408080]Articles 2 & 3: China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty of the Penghu group, Taiwan and the eastern portion of the bay of Liaodong Peninsula together with all fortifications, arsenals and public property.[/color]’

The same arguments could be carried over to the Americas, sure. Immigrants screwed the natives badly over inherent sovereignty rights using baseless, immoral characterizations of the original population as ‘savage’. England’s claims faced challenge too, but not without a major fight.

Nobody in either Taiwan or China will seek or ever accept an outside opinion, nevermind a third party decision. This is genuinely an internal Chinese dispute and the natives of the land have little hope of taking their rightful place in settling it.

Have a nice day.

[color=#808040]puckatawk[/color]/massachusetts

19

No you are not making a case. You are just stating your conclusion. The Nationalist Army was instructed by the Allies to go to Taiwan and accept the surrender of the Japanese on behalf of the Allies. The Nationalist hardly went there to ‘enforce’ their claims.

[quote]
Frankly though, I find the DDP’s assumptions of automatic sovereignty for the immigrant Chinese population here, because of a void following Japanese withdrawl, hard to swallow. The genuine native [aboriginal] point of view gets completely undermined. It wasn’t exactly all one big happy family at the time. It was a population dominated by Chinese migrants who then and often still seem to believe in their own primacy. [/quote]

Well, many Taiwanese are also part aboriginal. But that’s not the point. Taiwan is a former colony. The colonial power left (Japan) and instead of getting a chance to exercise their right to self-determination, the Taiwanese were ruled by a new colonial power (the Nationalists) were considerably less skilled at governing than their predecessors.

The Taiwanese were Japanese citizens. When the Nationalist government took over it ‘passed’ a law making them all Chinese citizens. Why shouldn’t they have been allowed to choose?

No it’s not. The US 7th fleet made it a non-Chinese dispute 60 years ago. Japan also has a very important voice in these issues.

20

how can it be genuinely an internal Chinese dispute when it involves at best four separate nations (China, Taiwan, Japan and the US) and at worst three nations (China, Japan and the US) and an unresolved former colonial territory of one of those states (Japan)?

:loco: :loco: :loco: