Category: Reunification Issues

High-class mainlander Comsymps over at Taiwan's China Post, working like stakhanovites to convince Taiwanese to surrender to the Communist Chinese.

Actually, if that's the tack you want to take, then the right to determine one's political status is being trampled right now — by the ROC constitution.  And in the complete ABSENCE of any independence referendums!  Because it takes all kinds to make a country — Taiwan independence advocates, elderly Japanophiles . . . youthful America lovers:

I am a proud citizen of Taiwan / Japan / America.  I want my country to include Taiwan / Japan / America.  I refuse to be classified as a citizen of the Republic of China!  The R.O.C. constitution is trampling over my right to determine my political status!

A reply to all of them might go something like this:

The classical liberals of the nineteenth century believed that individuals should be free to determine their own lives. It is why they advocated private property, voluntary exchange, and constitutionally limited government. They also believed that people should be free to reside in any country they wish. In general, therefore, they advocated freedom of movement. Governments should not compel people to stay within their political boundaries, nor should any government prohibit them from entering its territory for peaceful purposes.

An extension of this principle was that individuals should be free to determine through plebiscite what state they would belong to. This is distinctly different from the collectivists’ notion of “national self-determination,” the alleged necessity for all members of an ethnic, racial, linguistic, or cultural group to be incorporated within a single political entity, regardless of their wishes. Thus, for instance, the Nazis demanded that all members of the “Aryan race” be forcefully united within a Greater Germany under National Socialist leadership.

[Similar demands made by Chinese nationalists, be they KMT or CCP — The Foreigner]

Classical liberalism is closer to “individual self-determination.” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises argued in Liberalism (1927) that the liberal ideal allows individuals within towns, districts, and regions to vote on which state they would belong to; they could remain part of the existing state, join another state, or form a new one.

Mises stated that in principle this choice should be left to each individual, not majorities, since a minority (including a minority of one) might find itself within the jurisdiction of a government not of its own choosing. But because it was difficult to imagine how competing police and judicial systems could function on the same street corner, Mises viewed the majoritarian solution to be a workable second best.  [emphasis added]

Communist Party fellow-traveller (and faux-individualist) Bevin Chu is a big fan of the the majoritarian solution — not for the honorable intention of empowering self-determination but for crushing it.  The Post usually endorses this scheme of Chu's, but on this one occasion feigns mild disapproval:

Suppose Beijing were to argue that "The political status of China must be determined by the 1.3 billion people of China.  The political status of the 1.3 billion people of the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau must be collectively determined by the 1.3 billion people of the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau by popular referendum."

Polls have revealed that 95% of the public [in the Communist People's Republic of China] opposes Taiwan independence.  Does anyone doubt what the outcome of a referendum on Taiwan independence would be?

Good one, Bev.  And while we're at it, let's keep those rebellious Danes in the Reich by means of a referendum among all true-blooded Germanic Aryans!

POSTSCRIPT:  Quite frankly, it's surreal to be talking about independence referendums in Taiwan when the Chinese Nationalist Party controls both the presidency and 75% of the legislature.

Independence referendum in Taiwan?  Not gonna happen.

For a long, long time.

Always a hoot when the Confucian collectivists at Taiwan's China Post invoke individualism (!) to rationalize Taiwan's annexation by the Chinese Empire.  On Wednesday, the paper even tried to get away with the dishonest suggestion that Ayn Rand would have been cool with that.

From the editorial, A thought experiment on 'right to self-determination':

Really?  Try telling that to the freed peoples of the Austro-Hungarian, British, Turkish and Soviet Empires.  "Hey — ya'll have no national right to self-determination.  Howdya like them apples?"

OK, now that Rand has been injected into the whole Taiwan independence debate, let's see what her actual thoughts on secession were:

Sounds like the lady was dead-set against it.  But there's a catch . . .

Now, that part about the "mixed economy" is actually a huge caveat.  After all, even the most capitalist countries in the world possess at least SOME elements of socialism. . .

We can clearly see that Rand whole-heartedly approved of the right to national self-determination — for free peoples.

UPDATE:  Consistent with that secession quote, I just found some pretty strong support for Taiwanese independence over at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Eat your heart out, Bevin Chu.  A is still A.  Eh?

UPDATE #2:  More from Rand herself —

[A free nation] has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.

"Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it;
those who fail to learn history correctly — why, they are
simply doomed."

– Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda

Taiwanese have NOTHING to be ashamed of if they surrender their sovereignty in tough economic times, said the China Post's Joe Hung a week ago, because even the never-say-die Texans of the Nineteenth Century did THAT:

Hung brings up the subject in the context of his dreams for a commonwealth with China, the bellicose nation that threatens Taiwan.  Though perhaps it escaped his notice that Texas didn't vote for annexation TO the country that threatened it militarily; it voted for annexation to a country that would PROTECT it from same. 

And so I have a counter-proposal for Hung and the editors of the China Post.  If Taiwan's economy really IS that bad (which is to say, worse than in the immediate years following World War II when the KMT managed to drive it into the ground), then perhaps Taiwan should emulate the Texas of two centuries ago by forming a commonwealth (or even a confederation) with a nearby country that will protect it from China's designs.

(Of course, using the Texas analogy, the only logical choice for that role would have to be . . . Japan.)

"The Commonwealth of Asian Democracies."  Has kind of a nice ring, doesn't it?

Been back in Taiwan for a while now, and I see Joe Hung at the China Post is still flogging that old hobbyhorse of his, the idea of a unified Chinese-Taiwanese commonwealth:

Lien Chan, honorary chairman of the Kuomintang . . . is an advocate of a Chinese confederation,* an idea similar to the Chinese commonwealth which alone may be endorsed by the United States, Japan and other world powers. All of them want the status quo between Taiwan and China. Their national interests will be hurt if Chinese reunification takes place as Beijing now wants. Neither do they want Taiwan to get too closely associated with China. If Taiwan remains a dominion within the Chinese commonwealth, they will be able to best safeguard their respective national interests.

[…]

Peaceful unification or reunification is not impossible, if the example of the British Commonwealth of Nations is followed. Just as Great Britain made Canada a dominion in 1867, the People's Republic of China can give Taiwan dominion status now in preparation for a full-fledged Chinese commonwealth. The People's Republic and the Republic of China in Taiwan may be united in the name of the Chinese nation. They will be equal in status and in no way subordinate to the other, albeit the People's Republic may be the ex-officio head of the commonwealth. A dominion is recognized as a separate state entitled to have separate representation in the United Nations and other world organizations, to appoint its own ambassadors and to conclude its own treaties. At the same time, it is not considered to stand in the same relation to the People's Republic as foreign countries.

How ironic that Hung should make these arguments as the terrible events of 8/8/08 unfold before the world's eyes.  And by 8/8/08 I speak not of the Genocide Games, but of the war between Russia and Georgia.  For you see, the Georgians followed Hung's advice to the letter: fifteen years ago they humbled themselves, humbled themselves before a giant neighbor and joined the Commonwealth of Independent States. 

And where did THAT get them?  Did it get them all those sweet gauzy promises as outlined in the Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States?

No.  It got them Russian land grabs in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that's where.**  Apparently the wisdom of Lao Tzu ain't all that it's cracked up to be.***

And so the question I pose is threefold:  Which nation does autocratic China more closely resemble, democratic Britain or autocratic Russia?  And, given that resemblance, can we expect the character of a Chinese Commonwealth to be more like Britain's . . . or Russia's?  And finally, can we all agree that the fate of Georgia within Russia's Commonwealth of "Independent" States is a fate that Taiwan would do well to avoid?

I've tried to debunk Hung's dangerous dreams of a Chinese Commonwealth on previous occasions (here and here).  But I must admit that the War of 8/8/08 discredits them far more persuasively than my own humble efforts ever could.

* About the only thing I know about confederations is how remarkably unstable they tend to be.  Within short order, confederations tend to either dissolve into their component states or centralize into federations instead.  Indeed, the lifetime of most confederacies appears to consist of a span of less than ten years.

Given the inequalities of power within Lien's proposed confederation, the smart money would be on future centralization, however.  Once Taiwan raises the hopes of Chinese unificationists by joining a Chinese Confederacy it would be well nigh impossible for a Taiwanese president to approach Beijing and say, "Hey, we gave it our best, but this just isn't working out.  We'd like to negotiate a peaceful separation." 

And so we see that the KMT's Lien Chan advocates little more than a face-saving Taiwanese surrender, followed by progressive involuntary absorption into the Chinese Empire. 

** Some background explaining Russian provocations prior to 8/8/08 can be found here and here.  Could a similar scenario play out someday in Taiwan?  If a breakaway Kinmen Island attempted to reunify with China, would Beijing be all that reluctant in sending PLA "peacekeepers"?   In issuing the island's inhabitants Chinese passports?  In escalating military attacks on Taiwanese waters or even Taiwan proper from Kinmen, all the while denying those attacks or perhaps insisting that the Kinmenese were the ones responsible?

And lastly, how severe would Chinese attacks have to be before Taiwan was goaded into a military response of its own?

*** Hung quotes Lao Tzu as follows:

"And if a small kingdom humbles itself before a great kingdom, it shall win over that great kingdom," he teaches. "Thus," he concludes, "the one humbles itself in order to attain, the other attains because it is humble. If the great kingdom has no further desire than to bring men together and to nourish them, the small kingdom will have no further desire than to enter the service of the other. But in order that both may have their desire, the great one must learn humility."

Hung's message to Taiwan is that Beijing is generous and humble.  And therefore, Taiwan must capitulate.

UPDATE:  Oh, THIS just keeps getting better.  Russia demands that Georgia be demilitarized.

UPDATE #2:  Take this Commonwealth and shove it — President Saakashvili announces his intentions to take Georgia out of the Commonwealth of Independent States, and suggests other former Soviet Republics follow his lead.  Hey, I'm sure Russia will be cool with that . . .

UPDATE #3:  Why couldn't the Georgians have just let South Ossetia pass into Russian hands, if that was what the local population wanted?  Certainly a question I've asked myself lately.  Kat from Missouri explains how South Ossetia is sort of the Golan Heights of Georgia.

UPDATE #4:  This is a few days old, but still worth the read if you've got the time.  Who's Winning in Georgia and Who's Winning in Georgia #2.

UPDATE #5:  A piece much more critical of Georgia.

UPDATE #6:  And French sympathies are with . . . Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

UPDATE #7:  "China’s Communist rulers, while basking in the glow of their Olympics bash, are surely checking the tea leaves for what this might presage about U.S. support for another U.S. ally: the democratic Republic of China on Taiwan. If the U.S. will not stand up to North Korea, will not stand up to Iran, will not stand up to Russia, then where will the U.S. stand up? What are the real rules of this New World Order?"  Yeah, that's gonna make me sleep better at night.

UPDATE (Aug 14/08):  Where the Kosovo analogy breaks down.

The China Post reports that Taiwanese magnate Robert Tsao is none too happy about his shiny new surrender monkey label:

"Why is it that Chen’s election as president by the expression of the will and volition of the people is called democracy, and the same expression over unification with China condemned as surrender?" Tsao questioned.

Well, that’s an easy one.  Tsao proposes to sign away the power Taiwan currently enjoys, in theory at least, of being able to call unification referendums.  Not only would he renounce that power, but he would cede that power in perpetuity to an foreign government.  In doing so, he would take a power currently invested not only in Taiwan’s executive and legislative branches, but in the people of Taiwan itself (via referendum petitions), and hand that power over to an enemy government – without a shot ever being fired in anger.  He would strip political power away from elected and accountable local politicians, and present it on a silver platter to the unelected, unaccountable commissars of a hostile communist nation.

And Robert Tsao still can’t figure out WHY this would be an act of surrender? *

By definition, Taiwan’s government and people under Tsao’s plan would be SUBORDINATE to the Chinese government with regards to this issue.  Taiwan would be announcing, for all the world to hear, that it was now recognizing Beijing’s authority over it.  China proposes, the Taiwanese electorate disposes.

We can all debate the significance of surrendering this one, particular political power to Beijing.  Is it an inconsequential surrender for a greater good, a catastrophic one, or something in-between?  We can even discuss its merits and pitfalls.  But at the end of the day, even a minor surrender is still a surrender.  And even an inconsequential initial surrender can lead to greater surrenders further down the line.  Has Tsao even bothered to spend a minute to think all this through?

Once the People’s Republic of China is granted this power, is it likely to be satisfied?  Will its government say, "Well, we got what we wanted, now we can have peace in our time"?  Or will it decide, quite rationally, that Taiwanese are nothing but paltroons, and demand ever more control over Taiwan’s government?

I’m willing to give Tsao the benefit of the doubt here, and assume he DOESN’T want to hand Beijing the driver’s seat.  All he is is a well-intentioned, "reasonable" man with a "reasonable" compromise – who hasn’t the foggiest notion of the consequences of letting the camel’s nose under the tent.  Having made this one compromise though, what other compromises is he willing to make, further down the line?  Robert Tsao is offended by the surrender charge, and asks, "What sort of a man do you think I am?"   The answer can be found in George Bernard Shaw’s famous quip to the lady born and bred into high-society:

"We’ve already established what you are.  Now we’re merely haggling over the price."

* Not surprisingly, one of Taiwan’s leading capitulationist newspapers, the China Post, attempts to blur the issue:

…analysts say the referendum on unification Tsao proposed is a means by which the people of Taiwan can freely express their will and volition…

Obviously, the Post‘s unnamed analysts are using some definition of the word "freely" that I wasn’t previously aware of.  These great Solomons aver that Tsao’s plan allows Taiwanese to "freely" express their will and volition…but only when Beijing in its infinite benevolence deigns to LET THEM.

Postscript:  It’s interesting that I haven’t heard anybody discuss the constitutional issues involved here.  I’m no expert on the Republic of China’s constitution, but I would very much like to see Mr. Tsao point out the relevant articles in it that state it’s OK for Beijing to become, in essence, a sixth branch of the R.O.C. government.

P.P.S.:  Tsao makes a nice analogy about Taiwan’s position, which I think is nonetheless flawed:

If [Taiwan] wants de jure independence, Taiwan has to be just as well-prepared as people desiring to climb the Matterhorn…Addressing hard-core independence activists, he pointed out:

"[President] Chen, your tourist guide…got elected president thanks to you…  You’ll have to ask him carefully what preparations he has made (for your Matterhorn climb) and how much.

I would argue that Taiwan’s position is a little more akin to that of someone who has lost a lot of pieces in chess.  Under Tsao’s analogy, demanding a roadmap to the goal makes a lot of sense; under mine, the act of telling your opponent your strategy is just about the worst thing you can do.

Sometimes when things look bleak for you in chess, the only strategy available is to try to simply keep your options open.  An opportunity may present itself later down the line, but you’ll only be able to take advantage of it if you haven’t allowed yourself to get pinned down.

Under that analogy, it seems to me Tsao’s policy is undesirable, because it closes a lot more strategic doors than it happens to open.

P.P.P.S.:  It must be admitted that one of President Chen’s objections to Tsao’s proposals was exceedingly odd:

…Chen fired a Parthian shot by saying Tsao spent "a lot of money" on ads and yet people who "are striving to make a living" don’t have the time to read them.

Um, why is Chen singing verses from the KMT hymnal?  It’s the OPPOSITION’S job to talk down the economy, not the President’s!

(The View from Taiwan has good news about the national economy here.)