Last month’s visit by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) sparked conflicts within Taiwan that have not dissipated. Chen’s visit highlighted sharp differences in the public’s views of China as well.
One view focuses on the opportunity and benefits that China may represent. Some believe that China’s yearly GDP growth of 10 percent, its accumulation of US$2 trillion in foreign reserves and the potential buying power of its economy will be the saviors of the global economic recession. According to this view, closer links with China will bring Taiwan a prosperous future and China is seen as the nation’s only hope.
This theory is based on the unstated hypothesis that political responsibility, democracy and human rights can be sacrificed for economic growth — up to an “appropriate” extent.
This has been facilitated by the negotiations between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Agreements reached via the party-to-party platform are then ratified by the Straits Exchange Foundation and ARATS and put into effect by the governments of Taiwan and China.
Taiwan is a democracy, but the KMT-CCP communication platform is non-transparent and has managed to escape monitoring of the legislature and civil society.
However, for monopolistic business groups, the platform is very effective and direct cross-strait flights and other special privileges are decided behind closed doors, which is more efficient than open negotiations.
But this view of China as an economic opportunity is incomplete. It considers problems from the viewpoint of capitalist groups and blindly sings the praises of economic development, while ignoring issues such as massive social costs, destruction of the environment and the exploitation of hundreds of millions of workers.
As China’s power increases, social inequality is increasing. Not long ago, Chinese political scientist Ding Xueliang (丁學良) said in the online version of the Chinese-language publication Financial News that the Chinese model should not be adopted in developing nations precisely because the social costs are too high.
A second view of China focuses on the threats our neighbor may present.
Beijing’s bullying of Taiwan has not eased, despite Taipei’s gestures of goodwill. China has taken various steps to oppress Taiwan. The “Anti-Secession” Law, the “one China” principle and the 1,000 missiles it has aimed at Taiwan are a few examples. If it establishes closer links with China, Taiwan will become a second Hong Kong and democracy will be a thing of the past.
China has had its eyes on Taiwan for a long time and it is a society full of risk, with the recent melamine-tainted milk scandal being a good example. China is unstable and at risk of collapsing, as exemplified by continuous protests and riots in Xinjiang and Tibet. With close economic links, Taiwan would risk suffering immensely if CCP rule collapsed.
This view is based on the hypothesis that Taiwan has always been a victim in its dealings with China, with money going into China and debt staying in Taiwan. But many Taiwanese businesspeople have found success in China and the cross-strait division of labor has indirectly helped upgrade industries in Taiwan.
In addition, hundreds of millions of peasant workers fuel the “world’s factory” — including joint ventures between China and Taiwan — and have therefore contributed to Taiwan’s economy.
But this view also has a blind spot: It ignores the changes that have taken place in China and the state of Chinese society.
After 30 years of developing a market economy, China is no longer truly communist but is moving toward bureaucratic capitalism. The irony is that the KMT, with its anti-communist history, has long been friendly to the CCP, while the Taiwanese public’s fears of “Red China” are still fed by decades of the KMT’s anti-communist propaganda.
Although China is strictly controlled by the state, many NGOs are active in gray areas where the state cannot supervise and control them. Protesters in China no longer protest in the name of “class struggle” — they use creative and imaginative terms to package their activities.
For example, some people use the term “take a stroll” to refer to street protests, while others use the term “visit” to mean surrounding a government office. This is reminiscent of the way street protests were called “self-help movements” 20 or so years ago in Taiwan.
The two above-mentioned views of China, while very different, have one thing in common: Both lack social perspective.
Taiwan’s understanding of China should be based on progressive values and careful analysis of social issues. I would like to propose that with the rise of China’s economy, China is no longer a backward country and the CCP is no longer a totalitarian party, but an authoritarian party characterized by resilient and flexible rule.
Various social groups are emerging in China and Taiwanese people comprise one of these. The market economy has made China wealthier, but has also aggravated social inequalities. The ways in which China uses its state apparatus to control society are becoming more technological and subtle, while diversity and social protest become more common.
There is a great deal of truth behind the threats that China represents, but the image of the “Red Terror” has been exaggerated.
Cross-strait exchanges should not be monopolized by two political parties that only represent political and business interests. The KMT-CCP talks are an anti-democratic platform for secret party diplomacy. They serve business groups and represent a private club for the ruling elite and high ranking officials and business leaders whose prime concern is money and power. The agenda they set covers up and crowds out serious social problems.
Apart from the KMT-CCP platform, we need something along the lines of a cross-strait civil society platform to promote open and democratic dialogue. Taiwan should engage China’s cultural and academic circles as well as civic groups to help Chinese better understand Taiwan. This would also help both sides share their experiences fighting to survive in societies characterized by decades of dictatorship.
It is worth thinking about what inspiration the negative and positive experiences we gained through democratic transformation can give China’s awakening civil society — and how progressive circles from both sides of the Strait can combine their efforts and fight right-wing influences in our societies.
The establishment of a cross-strait civil society platform would not only help protect the nation’s democracy, it could help encourage China to think about what social values it has sacrificed in its quest to become a wealthy and strong nation.
Wu Jieh-min is an associate professor of sociology and a member of the executive committee at the Center for Contemporary China at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
Deflation in China is persisting, raising growing concerns domestically and internationally. Beijing’s stimulus policies introduced in September last year have largely been short-lived in financial markets and negligible in the real economy. Recent data showing disproportionately low bank loan growth relative to the expansion of the money supply suggest the limited effectiveness of the measures. Many have urged the government to take more decisive action, particularly through fiscal expansion, to avoid a deep deflationary spiral akin to Japan’s experience in the early 1990s. While Beijing’s policy choices remain uncertain, questions abound about the possible endgame for the Chinese economy if no decisive
Somehow, US intelligence identified “the Houthis’ top missile guy” and pinpointed his exact location. At 1348 hours (Washington time), March 15, President Trump’s national security advisor Mike Waltz texted, “positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building.” The unsuspecting Romeo entered. High above, the drone monitoring the building registered a flash. When the smoke cleared, Mr. Waltz texted, “…And it’s now collapsed.” RIP. The star-crossed “top missile guy” had been target number one in the now uproarious US Navy bombing campaign on that Sunday against the Yemeni rebels who have been holding the Red Sea hostage since October 19,
Actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) on March 13 posted an Instagram caption after the opening of Tiffany’s Taipei flagship store two days earlier that read: “Thank you Tiffany for inviting us to Taipei China.” We know that Yeoh knows Taipei is in Taiwan, not China, because the caption was posted following comments she made — in English — in which she said: “Thank you to Tiffany for bringing me to Taipei, because I do love this country very much.” Her remarks and the subsequent Instagram caption were reported in Taiwan, in Chinese and English- language media such as Radio Free Asia, and overseas,
RSS