Who controls whom?
It would surely come as some relief to Robin Winkler to know that he is safely mistaken in his diagnosis of what ails Taiwan (“Who speaks for the rule of law?” Aug, 28, p 8).
Winkler’s chastisement of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for undermining “the rule of law” is at best a superficial analysis and perhaps even a dishonest one.
The facts to support his argument may be clear to see, but, by framing them in the context of “the rule of law” he diffracts the light away from the true nature of what is happening — this is not simply the behavior of a “rough” executive, Taiwan is quite literally being invaded.
First, there was not, is not, nor can there ever be, a single example of when Winkler’s so-called “rule of law” does not devolve to, or in the more salient cases degrade to, the rule of men.
For sure, there are ample questions as to the degree to which that may occur, but the relevant point is that Winkler’s “rule of law” has always been little more than a rhetorical flourish promoted by popular ignorance of the status of what he calls a “fundamental value of Western society.”
It is not and nor does it make any sense to think of it as such. The obvious question to put to him would be why the overall design of the legal architecture in the US, which he refers to with such mendacious phrasing, was designed in the way it was in the first place?
The answer to that question is that the US legal system was designed with the specific intent of limiting the powers of government and protecting the freedom of the individual.
This idea was, is and always will be anathema to Chinese (and not only Chinese) conceptions of society.
The failure of democratic government in Taiwan to prevent the degradation of the “rule of law” into this sinister “rule of party” is neither unique, nor should it really be a surprise. In fact, the US itself furnishes any honest student with plenty of examples of this trend, both historical and current.
The warping of democratic government in Taiwan may have been exacerbated by the pre-existing organizational power of the KMT, but even that itself can be fully explained by an initial design flaw — a central, unified legal architecture that concentrates political power under a territorial monopoly rather than diffuses power as far as possible toward the individual.
The last time Taiwan was plunged from the beginnings of Western enlightenment into the barbarity of two centuries of Chinese darkness came about as the result of the sudden invasion of Chinese power represented by the forces of Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功) back in 1661.
Today, the weapons of combat are different — legal provisions for land theft instead of warships and so on — but the nature of what is happening is similar.
Perhaps a better concept for understanding Taiwan’s current problems comes from the rather unlikely source of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and his famous formula: “who, whom?”
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
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