I disagree. I think most Taiwanese are open to a loose union with China in which they won’t have to give up their freedoms and way of life. Taiwan independence die-hards are a minority. [/quote]
That may or may not be true, but either way, it’s irrelevant. The Taiwanese people aren’t the ones who make that decision - the politicians are.
Well, at least they’ve got one thing right.[/quote]
Sadly no, Hobart is quite wrong, Falun Dafa is still legal in Hong Kong. They staged a very small demonstration just last week. As to whether or not they are welcome… well they never really were.
[quote=“Hobart”]In HK, I have a list somewhere if I can find it, of all of the ways that China has betrayed their promises. One that comes to mind is freedom of the press (They are not allowed to write about Taiwan that goes against the Xinhua Propaganda), also many truthfulk editors have been canned (SCMP Editor in Chief), also I think FaLung Gong is no longer welcome in HK. The interpretation of the law is no small matter. That was a breach of their promise.
Please research some more. Look more closely. I will try to find the list I have made or research and make a new. Can someone else help me out.[/quote]
I am interested in this, and I don’t claim to know all about it since I haven’t lived there since I moved after the turnover-- just visited.
I guess my question is if this is a policy from the mainland, a policy passed in Hong Kong under pressure from the mainland, or policy of the newspapers enacted because of economic pressure from the mainland.
If you can present the promises made and promises broken, sort of like a Rush Limbaugh style of outing technique (he said this here, but then did this here) that would be really helpful. I don’t claim they haven’t, but I do know that sometimes people will perceive something as a broken promise or breach of faith when the other side is acting within the proper bounds (even if it isn’t nice).
Again, I’m not arguing against what you said, but I do hope you can show your list so I can see what you mean.
[quote=“Tetsuo”]To address those points as I understand his suggestion:
- Yes, they are different ideas - that doesn’t mean different points of each couldn’t be integrated in a new system though.
- This one I see as a problem too - who’s the head of state of China but not of the PRC? The Queen is the head of state of England first and the rest of the Commonwealth second.
- I think he was being facetious on the “Heaven” thing.
Basically I think that, with tweaking, it could work. Unfortunately I firmly believe it will never fly, simply because the issue at hand has nothing to do with logic or reason. Neither side gives a crap about anything that makes sense, they just want to get their own way, whatever that may be at the time.[/quote]
Thanks Tetsuo, that’s right. I am thinking of two concepts and trying to fuse them together.
Point 2, you’re right. But I’m not thinking of a particular figurehead. That’s why I used “heaven”, which I meant metaphorically to be the equivalent of an Arthurian sort of idealized concept of China. You know, something greater than any petty government to which both could look to as a common ground.
As for both sides not caring about the logic of it and only wanted to get their own way-- that’s exactly why I proposed it as I did. My fanciful hope is that both sides could see it as getting their way-- or at the least make a show of getting their way. That’s why I think it may be possible, but quite unlikely, to succeed with enough tweaking.
I voted the middle choice on the suggestion.
- Taiwan is part of China
- The People’s Republic of China is part of China
- Taiwan is not the People’s Republic of China
- The PRC is not Taiwan
- Taiwan and the PRC are inseparable, but mutually autonomous
- The people of the PRC are ruled by the will of their people by the government of their choice (as it is now)
- The people of Taiwan are ruled by the will of their people by the government of their choice
- All of China is united by consent of all parties for the protection and benefit of its people
At first sight, an intriguing example of Socratic/Cartesian (Euro-centric) logic to an non-European problem (see the discussion about China and Taiwan as some sort of EU, which in the Asian context is far more likely to occur under the auspices of ASEAN, in the same way that OAS or OAU have done.) On closer examination, reminds me a little of the People’s Front of Jihad, a la Monty Python.
I do like the premise, however. It is entirely possible that China could let this slide under these terms. But would it be worth it for the pro-indepence people in Taiwan to do this? Only if they were backed into a corner through military aggression, and I’m not for political compromise under the threat of violence, personally (and broadly) speaking. But I do have another question or two - can anyone explain to me why Taiwanese people (about half of them, apparently) would vote to have their right to vote for their own government taken away from them? I have two students at the moment (out of two) who seem to think that Chen Shui Bian is untrustworthy because he goes with public opinion. Apart from Weber’s work on the Chinese literati, can anyone explain the place of the philosopher-King in Chinese culture, and - if they can - how this translates here in Taiwan? Genuinely interested!
[quote=“Manmountain”]1. Taiwan is part of China
2. The People’s Republic of China is part of China
3. Taiwan is not the People’s Republic of China
4. The PRC is not Taiwan
5. Taiwan and the PRC are inseparable, but mutually autonomous
6. The people of the PRC are ruled by the will of their people by the government of their choice (as it is now)
7. The people of Taiwan are ruled by the will of their people by the government of their choice
8. All of China is united by consent of all parties for the protection and benefit of its people
At first sight, an intriguing example of Cartesian (Euro-centric) logic to an non-European problem (see the discussion about China and Taiwan as some sort of EU, which in the Asian context is far more likely to occur under the auspices of ASEAN, in the same way that OAS or OAU have done.) On closer examination, reminds me a little of the People’s Front of Jihad, a la Monty Python. [/quote]
Actually, I was trying to keep in mind the Chinese phrasing of these things when I drew it up. That’s why there needs to be 8 points since that is a more perfect number in Chinese numerology.
It also echoes back to previous proposals on Hong Kong and Macau, appealing to Chinese precedent and auspicious phrasing. I’ve been thinking of translating the idea into Chinese, but I lack any sort of eloquence when I write Chinese. But I did keep in mind how I would try and translate it when I wrote it up…
You think so? I’ve felt it much more likely that Taiwanese would accept this idea than mainland China. They would get recognized international representation and legitimacy without being under any controls from Beijing.
Beijing, on the other hand, would not get control of Taiwan, but would have their demands for a One China met. They would remove a thorny problem that has caused international friction, but would that be enough to convince them allow Taiwan unrestricted freedom without a promise of ever being under the controlf of the PRC? I think that’s a really hard sell.
You mean vote to not have a referendum on independence? Well, a vote for independence could spark an attack from Beijing even before the vote occurs. That’s one factor.
As for the other, I don’t think that’s a matter of the Chinese/Confucian paradigm for the emporer being applied to Taiwan’s president, but perhaps a feeling that a president should be wiser and leading the people (with their support) rather than waiting to be dictated to by popular media reports.
Sorry, got my html code a bit wrong … the edited version is below!
[quote=“puiwaihin”] [quote=“Manmountain”]1. Taiwan is part of China
2. The People’s Republic of China is part of China
3. Taiwan is not the People’s Republic of China
4. The PRC is not Taiwan
5. Taiwan and the PRC are inseparable, but mutually autonomous
6. The people of the PRC are ruled by the will of their people by the government of their choice (as it is now)
7. The people of Taiwan are ruled by the will of their people by the government of their choice
8. All of China is united by consent of all parties for the protection and benefit of its people
Actually, I was trying to keep in mind the Chinese phrasing of these things when I drew it up. That’s why there needs to be 8 points since that is a more perfect number in Chinese numerology.
[/quote]
Fair enough, I can sort of see that. But it’s still an application of Cartesian (Socratic, really, I guess) logic, which ends up with a bunch of negations on one side of the equation, balanced though that may be by the number eight. Socrates was usually good with three, which is a strange number. But I take your point.
OK, as far as it goes, but in Chinese (this is an offhand translation so I’d have to really look at it) it probably ends up so completely strategically ambiguous (that balance thing again) that it ends up saying nothing at all that can’t be manipulated (of course, manipulation of language is a hoary old chestnut.) That said, however …
[quote]I do like the premise, however. It is entirely possible that China could let this slide under these terms. But would it be worth the pro-indepence people in Taiwan to do this?
You think so? I’ve felt it much more likely that Taiwanese would accept this idea than mainland China. They would get recognized international representation and legitimacy without being under any controls from Beijing.
Beijing, on the other hand, would not get control of Taiwan, but would have their demands for a One China met. They would remove a thorny problem that has caused international friction, but would that be enough to convince them allow Taiwan unrestricted freedom without a promise of ever being under the control of the PRC? I think that’s a really hard sell.
[/quote]
I think you definitely have a point, and I think it’s worth discussing. But, under these terms, Taiwanese nationalism is reduced to bland pragmatism, and Chinese nationalism to a fragile (and potentially dangerous) assumption that the Chinese people are forever political dupes with no real feelings either way on the Taiwan issue. This is to refute everything the Chinese ‘government’ says at face value, which is nearly as tricky as believing it on the same grounds. (I think the Falun Gong issue was mentioned earlier.) Should the Chinese government fall due to civil unrest due to ‘patriotic’ demonstrations (a distinct possibility), then couldn’t the Taiwan issue be revived at some later date? And could this not lead to a flaring up of the Taiwanese question in some post-CCP configuration of nationalist politics in China? My theory here needs some revising, so watch this space … but nevertheless I think it’s worth thinking about. Without a lasting peace, is your proposal anything more than a continuance of the status quo, which is a major part of the problem, and not a solution? And - last question - to return to my original point, can we really suppose that the pro-Taiwanese are going to take this lying down in a similar way?
[quote]But I do have another question or two - can anyone explain to me why Taiwanese people (about half of them, apparently) would vote to have their right to vote for their own government taken away from them?
You mean vote to not have a referendum on independence? Well, a vote for independence could spark an attack from Beijing even before the vote occurs. That’s one factor.
[/quote]
Not exactly what I mean. I mean that if the KMT (or at least some elements) are proposing re-unification, which would effectively end democracy in Taiwan, why on earth is this something people would vote for? This is less to do with the prospect of a referendum than simple party politics. I may well be wrong on this one, but the KMT have very much been against any referendum, and some of them would gladly re-unify with little hesitation and certainly without the need for a democratic mandate to do so. I reserve judgement on whether Lien Chan is one of these. But I think that - strategic ambiguity notwithstanding - that this is implicit in at least part of the KMT ‘hard sell’.
[quote]
As for the other, I don’t think that’s a matter of the Chinese/Confucian paradigm for the emporer being applied to Taiwan’s president, but perhaps a feeling that a president should be wiser and leading the people (with their support) rather than waiting to be dictated to by popular media reports.[/quote][/quote]
I agree. Which perhaps raises questions about democracy in the modern era … for the West as well as Asia!
Please read through this thread before you post. My comment is directed at a specific issue, so please respond to that. I said what I said because I think Lien’s visit didn’t resolve anything while the blue media, I think, is trying to paint it almost like the Great Solution.
Taiwan is already a democracy, more or less, so I’m fine with whatever path the Taiwanese public chooses to walk, as long as they (or at least a good portion of them) don’t one day suddenly find the whole thing unacceptable …
I disagree. I think most Taiwanese are open to a loose union with China in which they won’t have to give up their freedoms and way of life. Taiwan independence die-hards are a minority. [/quote]
That may or may not be true, but either way, it’s irrelevant. The Taiwanese people aren’t the ones who make that decision - the politicians are.[/quote]
At least Chen Shui-bian seems to be reading opinion polls and changing his course accordingly, much to the fury of his green followers. And that’s where the danger is because everything is happening under the Chinese gun, and there is resentment in a portion of the population.
I would say that there is resentment in a large portion of the population against Chinese aggression.
I personally would agree to a union with the rest of Asia to ensure peace and stability, but a union with ONLY CHINA? Besides being somewhat insular, it sounds like a form of unification to me.
I’d think of it as a modified version of the status quo which eases the immediate tensions. It would not, as you mentioned, put an end to the potential for a merger of the two governments. It would leave the door open for that. But it wouldn’t create a mechanism for forcing this to happen. Whatever agreement gets drawn up, it must be crystal clear that Beijing cannot simply assert control on Taiwan.
In the current state of things, people in Taiwan cannot really vote how the feel. For one, who wants to vote for unifying for someone who wants to take you by force? That just rankles. On the other hand, who wants to vote for declaring independence when that can cause war.
Take away the need to vote for independence, leave the option open to vote for unification, and get rid of all the political stress and threat of violence. Then if people in Taiwan in the future desire unification it can happen. Elsewise things will continue as they are but in a more agreeable way.
Those who are the most hard core in their anti-China sentiments may reject anything short of a declaration of independence and a complete renunciation of being part of China. But hopefully this element will be outnumbered and outgunned by those who would see this proposal as a way to gain legitimacy on the international stage without a threat of war.
Well, I don’t think most are voting for reunification as much as they are voting to avoid war. Some of the older crowd were once part of China, and it is that old connection that guides their vote. But I think many fear the DPP’s tactics may spark a war with China so they will vote to prevent the DPP from having enough power to do anything drastic.
It would be a kind of unification. That’s why I think it could be accepted by the mainland. But Taiwan would continue their de facto independence and gain recognition on the international field, avoid possible war or total takeover by China, and basically get everything they would achieve by declaring independence.
The primary distinction between what I’m saying and One Country, Two Systems is that Beijing would acknowledge the right of the government of Taiwan to govern itself separately from the PRC.
Pui,
I really admire you for making the effort. However, in asking the PRC to clearly recognize Taiwan’s separateness from the PRC, your program clashes with both the PRC Constitution and the obvious intentions of the Chinese government, methink.
Beijing has already said they will allow Taiwan to very much govern itself as long as it recognizes “one China,” which sometimes means the PRC and sometimes means an abstract China in the sky. Any clarification on this point is the last thing Beijing wants, IMO, even though their Constitution says clearly that it’s the PRC.
Why are they deliberately keeping this fuzzy space with one country, two systems? They could have accepted Lien Chan’s confederation proposal, which placed PRC and ROC side by side under a common umbrella. (A confederation deal across the strait would have been an epoch-making breakthrough.) There have been many other similar proposals – federation, commonwealth, EU-style union, you name it. Beijing has not accepted any of them, and I think it’s because they pretty much close the door to PRC rule over Taiwan. Or at least they make it much more difficult. They want to keep the option to demolish the government on Taiwan when they see an opportunity.
I believe you’re right, but I hold out a faint hope that a suggestion that gives proper face to the “One China” principle and eliminates the headaches they are facing could get worked out.
[quote=“Levitator”]
Beijing has already said they will allow Taiwan to very much govern itself as long as it recognizes “one China,” which sometimes means the PRC and sometimes means an abstract China in the sky. Any clarification on this point is the last thing Beijing wants, IMO, even though their Constitution says clearly that it’s the PRC.
Why are they deliberately keeping this fuzzy space with one country, two systems? They could have accepted Lien Chan’s confederation proposal, which placed PRC and ROC side by side under a common umbrella. (A confederation deal across the strait would have been an epoch-making breakthrough.) There have been many other similar proposals – federation, commonwealth, EU-style union, you name it. Beijing has not accepted any of them, and I think it’s because they pretty much close the door to PRC rule over Taiwan. Or at least they make it much more difficult. They want to keep the option to demolish the government on Taiwan when they see an opportunity.[/quote]
No, I don’t think it’s of that nature. More likely, PRC has not agreed to these proposals simply because recognizing them would be for it to agree that Taiwan became independent already. This would imply several things: Taiwan became independent under its watch… a no no. Or, Taiwan became independent due to the revolution, an even bigger no no. PRC is operating under the assumption of one China and it is the legitimate government of that one China that just doesn’t rule Taiwan. It’s not that it needs to rule Taiwan or even wants to, and under 1C2S it won’t; it just can’t come out and say that it’s not rightfully its own decision whether to rule or not, being the “legitimate government of one China.” It’s a consistency thing.
And before anybody gives me a hard time, let’s just say that Taiwan does the same sort of thing, that it also rejects things on mere symbology not consistent with the governing ideology, such as detouring to HK for travel to the mainland.
Finally, I think it’s pointless to demonize the PRC today as having some sinister grand design on Taiwan. That sort of thing just closes off rational thinking. For one, whether Taiwan is in a confederacy or a part of a well negotiated 1C2S or even just status quo makes no difference to its security – the difference is in name only. Taiwan’s own armed forces and pseudo-alliances, as it were, and only those, are what make a difference. The PRC can do just about the same in all situations but it is in its strategic interest not to. A name won’t destroy or save anybody.
Hmmm … this depopulates the political somewhat. Rather, to add to your quote (my additions)
[quote]The PRC is operating under the assumption that its people believe in the ideology of one China and that it is the legitimate government of one China which doesn’t rule Taiwan[/quote].
This leads us to the conclusion that the PRC government wishes its citizens to see the government of the PRC as legitimate, which a) democratically, it clearly isn’t and b) in an era of globalised information networks, is a fallacy which increasingly risks being seen as transparent (see my post on another thread on the Xinhua news agency). This fallacy becomes particularly vulnerable to exposure should the PRC government be seen to about face on the Taiwan question.
And you make this point (almost) when you say:
I think my point here is that China has no real need to agree to what you’re proposing, given that it can maintain the status quo through military superiority. Neither would it desire such an agreement, on the basis that - as we all seem to agree - this would in fact represent a compromise no matter how it was dressed up; a compromise which - if unclothed - would very much cause it lose face (and thus power, let us not forget) with its domestic population, the international community, and extreme elements of the pro-independence movement on Taiwan.
Which kind of short-circuits their motivations for doing so.
However, this is not to disregard your proposal, as I believe it has value. How, diplomatically or otherwise, would you intend implementing this? And for those on this thread who have expressed either cautious optimism or tired resignation, how would you implement the proposal diplomatically (or otherwise), based on the assumption that it would actually work? Could we maybe work through these and then see how we can shoot ourselves down?! 
It’s very nice of you to be willing to ascribe the level of goodness to Beijing that I really believe they don’t deserve.
Now let’s see. A name does make a huge difference “legitimacy-wise,” not military-wise. A confederation very much makes it illegal, while one country, two systems as China has it now makes it perfectly legal to demolish the Taipei government or even invade Taiwan. Not that it will make any difference to PRC intentions, if there’s any, to invade or demolish Taipei. But it does make a huge difference in terms of face, at the UN.
Politcal and military equations change from one year to the next, but what’s written on an agreement is much harder to change. That’s why they are important.
Of course, I agree that Pui’s program or a well negotiated 1C2S or a confederation will work just as well as most other forms of union, given a little good faith. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any of it from Beijing. How can you even begin to negotiate if one party wants the other to agree to a fuzzy term (one China) even before the talks begin?
You argue that Beijing simply can’t get out of its own spin about being the sole legitimate ruler of one China. Well, you are free to look at Beijing’s intentions in a positive light if you want to, but you can’t really base treaties and agreements on someone else’s good intentions, can you?
[quote=“Levitator”]
It’s very nice of you to be willing to ascribe the level of goodness to Beijing that I really believe they don’t deserve. [/quote]
There is no goodness ascribed, only a clear-headed sense of rationality. What I don’t ascribe to Beijing is the level of evilness that people here do.
All the more reasons to negotiate in good faith and write something down. T.I.ers make it sound like negotiations equal death or surrender. I don’t know whether to ascribe it to their lack of self esteem or their lack of clear heads.
The question to ask is, what is there to lose and what is there to gain. Puiwaihin is asking precisely this, but from most responses, which I might add are fairly typical, these don’t seem to be under consideration: a sure sign of ideology-driven madness.
A fuzzy term is better than a concrete one. Taiwan has only itself to blame for adding a concrete term to its governing party’s plank that Beijing can never accept without some sort of good-faith fuzzifying along the lines of the 1992 Concensus of “One China, Different Interpretations.” For Beijing to behave in an equally insolent way would be to refuse to acknowledge that there are different interpretations to one China. Beijing does not do this. In any case, I can assure you right now that “one China,” even if in some form of lip service, is the absolute bottom line, to which Beijing has retreated by concession in the last decade and has no more room to maneuver.