Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Who said China must be ‘rational’?

Data recently released by the nation’s main spy agency, the National Security Bureau (NSB), put a new dent in President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) claims that his administration’s overtures to Beijing have helped reduce tensions in the Taiwan Strait.

Ma’s gambit, though initially hailed by many pundits as a brilliant move, has long puzzled experts who have been unable to account for Beijing’s failure to reciprocate. Indeed, its accelerating military buildup should only exacerbate fears in Taiwan.

The list of threats includes a growing arsenal of short and medium-range missiles that, perhaps even more importantly, are becoming increasingly accurate, as well as cruise missiles deployed further inland. To this we can add, among others, anti-ship ballistic missiles that would threaten any naval fleet coming to Taiwan’s assistance during a conflict and plans to acquire aircraft carriers, which would allow China to encircle Taiwan or extend its area of maritime denial.

While those developments have been apparent for a while, no one has managed to explain why Beijing would engage in what, prima facie, looks like self- defeating behavior. After all, why does China need such a large military, given that it faces no threat of invasion? Rather than reassure its neighbors, Beijing’s military buildup and increasingly aggressive positioning in the region are awakening some to the possibility that the paradigm by which we gauge China’s intentions may have been flawed all along.

There is a precedent for this, in the form of Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) decision to enter the Korean War after US and South Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel. At the time, the consensus in Washington was that Mao, who had just emerged victorious in a protracted and costly civil war against Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) Nationalists, would not expose China’s ruined economy to the risks of armed conflict with the US. This, however, is exactly what he did, and the West was caught off guard because analysts failed to think like a Chinese and assumed “rationalism” in the way it is understood in the West.

Although decision-making in China has become more complex and institutionalized since Mao’s time, this does not mean that how Beijing calculates costs and benefits has entirely changed or that what we think of as “rational” is seen as such at Zhongnanhai. Consequently, what might come across as paradoxical in our eyes could make perfect sense from a Chinese perspective.

We should keep this in mind as Taiwan develops closer economic, cultural and social ties with China. Case in point: The NSB reports that for the first half of this year, Taiwan was the target of 2.38 attacks by Chinese hackers every hour, or 10,346 attacks altogether, accounting for nearly one-third of all attacks directed at the country.

Cross-strait liberalization and “peace” notwithstanding, this shows that as with the military threat, China has maintained its aggressive posture vis-a-vis Taiwan. In turn, this reinforces the view that how decision-makers in Beijing evaluate costs and benefits can differ drastically from our own, resulting in acts that, from a business perspective, may make no sense whatsoever.

In this environment, the more Taiwan opens itself to Chinese investment, the more sectors will be exposed to the threat of espionage by Chinese individuals, firms and government agencies. This may seem equally self-defeating, but the danger to Taiwan, albeit more subtle, is no less severe.

Underfunded though it may be, the Ministry of National Defense has not been deceived by Ma’s window-dressing and continues to warn us about the threat posed by the Chinese military. Let us hope that the NSB and other agencies charged with protecting civilian and corporate infrastructure are equally aware that we are a long way from peace in the Taiwan Strait.

This editorial was published today in the Taipei Times.

20 comments:

Darren Taylor said...

Hi Michael. Why do you think the Chinese military is building up it's military? Is it merely evil? Or is it tyrannical lust for world domination?

Throughout the fifties, sixties and seventies, American government officials regarded the CCP as illegitimate, belligerent, and as an imminent danger. Throughout that period, China did not set up any permanent occupations of other countries, or establish any permanent military bases in other countries. And while they were dealing with internal issues, the United States has established a huge military presence all around the eastern, south eastern, southern, and nortwestern borders of China.

The worlds strongest nation has been consistently hostile to the CCP, and has surrounded it with military power. How should China react? How can you freak out over missiles aimed at Taiwan and not freak out over the US encirclement of China?

The Taiwanese government has always regarded the CCP as illegitimate, and the Taiwanese establishment continues to regard the mainland as a nation of backwards peasants held hostage and brainwashed by a gang of crooks. And I'm sure when China finally does attack or engage militarily, it will only justify the decades of hate and fear.

J. Michael Cole 寇謐將 said...

Hi Darren,

Thank you for the comments, which should allow be to expand on some of the points I made in the editorial and elsewhere.

To answer your first question, no, I don’t think the ongoing PLA expansion and modernization is either “evil” or meant as an instrument for world domination, as you put it. However, I do see it as part of a plan for regional hegemony and as means to coerce — and if needed attack — Taiwan over the question of unification. That alone, threatening a peaceful democracy that is less and less inclined towards unification now or at some point in future, is cause for alarm.

Yes, while the PRC was busy dealing with its own internal problems (in a totalitarian kind of way, I should add), the US was peppering the region with military bases. Though I am no big fan of US imperialism, a case can be made the US presence in Asia (or Northeast Asia, I should say) prevented the scorpions in the bottle from getting at each other’s throat, which is acknowledged as one of the principal reasons why the region emerged the way if did economically.

One reason why I’d argue people are warier of the PLA expansion than, say, that of another country like Japan, is the fact that China isn’t a democracy. This is not to say that democracies don’t wage war — even illegal ones — as the US has done a number of times since World War II, but democracy nevertheless provides certain checks and balances that, all things being equal, makes the decision to launch an offensive war more difficult while providing more signaling.

Yes, the US has been “hostile” and encircling China, but it didn’t threaten to invade it — at least not since Doug MacArthur’s suicidal drive to the Yalu river. That much can’t be said of China vis-à-vis Taiwan. And here’s an example of a war that didn’t happen specifically because of US security guarantees to Taiwan. That’s why I can freak out at Chinese pointing missiles at Taiwan. Since Chiang Kai-shek left the scene, Taiwan never threatened China. In fact, the great majority of its weapons systems are defensive in nature (the F-16s the US sold it in the early 1990s, for example, came minus the software that allows for ground targeting). Taiwan and the US do not conduct regular simulations of an amphibious assault on China. Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons, nor does it have its equivalent of an “Anti-secession” Law. Taipei does not say that if discussions on unification (or a political settlement) don’t go fast enough it might have to use force to settle the matter.

As for your contention that the Taiwanese government has “always regarded the CCP as illegitimate,” you’re only half right. The KMT under the Chiangs did not recognize it, but when the KMT’s Lee Teng-hui became president and pushed the two-state theory, didn’t he, de jure, recognize the legitimacy of the CCP government? And what of the Chen Shui-bian DPP administration, which argued there was one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait? Did this not, too, confer legitimacy upon the CCP? The DPP recognizes China and the CCP. And it wants Taiwan to be left alone.

Lashing out after years of “hate” and “fear” is no justification for war, I’m afraid. Especially not against Taiwanese, who I must emphasize yet again represent no threat whatsoever to Chinese and have long sought to co-exist peacefully with them, discriminatory views notwithstanding (and that’s a bit of a generalization on your part).

Darren Taylor said...

Thank you Michael. That was some good expansion. First, let me clarify by my last comment I meant justification of decades of hate and fear that will be experienced by those who have continued to regard the CCP as an evil dictatorship who has done nothing good for China and has never represented the interests of the Chinese people.

It seems like our main disagreement is to the disposition and character of the CCP, PLA, and Taiwanese people.

What's interesting is that you see positive effects in the US's imperial endeavors in southeast asia, and think that it's democratic system mitigates its threats.

Democracy has not stopped the US from dropping nukes and napalm on innocent people, nor has it stopped the US from supporting the violation of human rights, and violating human rights itself. I almost believed we could stop torture when we elected Obama, but any mention of that and the right wing says that he's surrendered our country to the terrorists.

Didn't Chiang Kai Shek 'leave the scene' around the time that Nixon took his trip to China? I can't imagine that renunciation of Taiwanese claims to the mainland were anything more than the realization that they constituted an insane death wish for millions of people and the end of the regime in Taiwan.

How can the CCP take Taiwanese tolerance of its regimes as sincere when it has come about only after Taiwan lost it's most important claim to legitimacy: the backing of the US?

I may be wrong in thinking that most people in the Taiwanese establishment have paranoid and condescending attitudes to the CCP and mainlanders respectively, but I've yet to see much evidence to the contrary. And how could they see the positive effects of the CCP and Communism, when they've been brought up in a society constructed by the losers of the civil war?

Is it fair to state that your justification of arms sales by the US to Taiwan would be that China wants to take back Taiwan? It would make sense, as the Taiwan and China have been in a state of hostility since the CCP came to power.

But, from the standpoint of mainlanders, when they see how hated and villified their country is by people in Taiwan, there is often a reactive sense of Nationalism and shock at the disparity between the country they've grown up in and the way that country is perceived by outsiders. And any narrative of the Taiwanese regime is only bolstered when they find that journalists like yourself continue the same attitudes toward China that pervaded throughout the Anti-communist era.

Darren Taylor said...

Thank you Michael. That was some good expansion.

The justification of decades of hate and fear will be experienced by those who regard the CCP as an evil dictatorship that has never represented the interests of the Chinese people.

What's interesting is that you see positive effects in the US's imperial endeavors in southeast asia, and think that it's democratic system mitigates its threat.

Democracy has not the dropping of nukes/napalm or the violation of human rights.

Didn't Chiang Kai Shek 'leave the scene' around the time that Nixon took his trip to China? I can't imagine that renunciation of Taiwanese claims to the mainland were anything more than the realization that they constituted an insane death wish for millions of people and the end of the regime in Taiwan.

How can the CCP take Taiwanese tolerance of its regimes as sincere?

I may be wrong in thinking that most people in the Taiwanese establishment have paranoid and condescending attitudes to the CCP and mainlanders respectively, but I've yet to see much evidence to the contrary. And how could they see the positive effects of the CCP and Communism, when they've been brought up in a society constructed by the losers of the civil war?

Is it fair to state that your justification of arms sales by the US to Taiwan would be that China wants to take back Taiwan? It would make sense, as the Taiwan and China have been in a state of hostility since the CCP came to power.

But, from the standpoint of mainlanders, when they see how hated and villified their country is by people in Taiwan, there is often a reactive sense of Nationalism and shock at the disparity between the country they've grown up in and the way that country is perceived by outsiders. And any narrative of the Taiwanese regime is only bolstered when they find that journalists like yourself continue the same attitudes toward China that pervaded throughout the Anti-communist era.

J. Michael Cole 寇謐將 said...

Hi Darren,

One clarification is necessary here. You write: “I can’t imagine that renunciation of Taiwanese claims to the mainland” and “How can the CCP take Taiwanese tolerance of its regimes as sincere?” There is no such thing as a “Taiwanese claim to the mainland.” Period. There is a CKS/KMT claim to the mainland — but remember, the KMT imposed itself on Taiwanese, and those who would “reclaim” the “mainland” only represented a very small fraction of the entire society in Taiwan; in other words, the Chinese who fled there after 1949. As those people don’t even identify themselves as Taiwanese (hence their desire to retake China), isn’t it unfair to say that it is a “Taiwanese claim to the mainland”?

The same, in my view, applies to “Taiwanese tolerance” of the CCP regime. The great majority of Taiwanese recognize China. This does not mean, however, that they do not resent authoritarianism (hell, they went through that themselves, thanks to a regime from China that occupied them) or the constant threat of invasion that stems from that regime’s policies. But I don’t see anything inherently wrong in hating a regime that is a systematic violator of human rights against its own people, one that to this day still glorifies one of the three greatest mass murderers in the twentieth century and jails or pressures anyone who would revisit that history.

And to answer to a comment you made in your first message, yes, China did threaten to invade a neighbor after World War II — and it did: Tibet. And it did: Vietnam. And it did: India.

Many Taiwanese may have “paranoid” and “condescending” attitudes toward the CCP and Chinese, yes. Ironically, close contact between the two people at times reinforces that view, especially when it comes to the “brainwashing” issue. At the same time, there’s nothing flattering when Chinese refer to Taiwan as “ghost island” and supporters of Taiwanese independence “splittists” or “sinner of a thousand years.” “Han” chauvinism expresses itself against Taiwanese, too, both by Chinese who fled to Taiwan and Chinese across the Strait towards Taiwanese (and any other ethnic minority in “greater China”).

“…brought up in a society constructed by the losers of the civil war?” Again, you assume that “Taiwanese society” is the KMT. The great majority are Taiwanese, whose identity and value system is very different from that of the Chinese who lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan. “Taiwanese society” had its rights and language and history and freedoms trampled on by the KMT, with thousands locked in jail, disappeared, threatened and killed during the White Terror. Theirs is also shaped by the history of being occupied — for good and bad — by the Japanese for 50 years. It is quite unfair, and altogether wrong from a historical and sociological perspective — to say that Taiwanese were brought up in a society constructed by the losers of the civil war. Taiwanese constructed their society, which the KMT sought to eradicate via education and social control. The KMT failed, and two terms under president Lee and two more under president Chen — that’s 16 years, at least — during which the Taiwanese identity, culture and language were reinforced. Just look at the polls, at the percentage of people in Taiwan who identify as Taiwanese versus those who see themselves as Chinese. It keeps growing in favor of Taiwanese identification. The same for the desire for unification versus independence. Even under the pro-Beijing president Ma Ying-jeou, the desire for independence and identification as Taiwanese continue to grow.

J. Michael Cole 寇謐將 said...

[cont'd]

I think the about 1 million Taiwanese who chose to invest or set up fabs in China understood all too well the “positive effects” of communism. That said, they’ve outgrown — peacefully, I might add — authoritarianism and are in a very good position to pass judgment on closed political systems and weigh those against a democratic one. I don’t think one can fully understand addiction to, say, crack cocaine, unless one has been through that hell himself.

“And any narrative of the Taiwanese regime is only bolstered when they find that journalists like yourself continue the same attitudes toward China that pervaded throughout the Anti-communist era.” So what do you make of the hundreds — thousands — of Chinese journalists working in China who criticize the CCP, at tremendous cost to their lives and those of their families? Surely this isn’t just a matter of Western or outsiders’ biases against communism.

Taiwan Echo said...

Nice discussions.

Michael:"As for your contention that the Taiwanese government has “always regarded the CCP as illegitimate,” you’re only half right. The KMT under the Chiangs did not recognize it, but when the KMT’s Lee Teng-hui became president and pushed the two-state theory, didn’t he, de jure, recognize the legitimacy of the CCP government? And what of the Chen Shui-bian DPP administration, which argued there was one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait? Did this not, too, confer legitimacy upon the CCP? The DPP recognizes China and the CCP. And it wants Taiwan to be left alone."

Well said. In fact, It's the KMT who doesn't recognize CCP government as the legitimate China gov. Started from Chiang KS regime to the current president, Ma Ying-jeou, who argues that ROC, the current gov in Taiwan, is the only legitimate gov of China.

Darren: “And any narrative of the Taiwanese regime is only bolstered when they find that journalists like yourself continue the same attitudes toward China that pervaded throughout the Anti-communist era.”

If you can read Chinese, I'd like to direct you to a website: 热血汉奸 in which Chinese -- not western Journalists -- expresses their angers against CCP and Chinese culture.

J. Michael Cole 寇謐將 said...

Taiwan Echo:

I’m glad you raised that point and I meant to return to this: Since it came back to power in 2008, Ma Ying-jeou’s KMT has resurrected the old ROC line that does not recognize the CCP or China as legitimate political boundaries. This view, unfortunately, is diametrically opposed to the consensus in Taiwan, and shows us that the KMT has failed to adapt to local realities in Taiwan. This could cost it dearly in the November elections as well as in 2012. No one outside Taiwan should take Ma’s pronouncements on China as representative of Taiwanese views — they are not. Given that people in China may have difficulty accessing contending views, however (e.g., through the Liberty Times, which is far as I know is blocked in China), it would not be surprising if the perception of ordinary Chinese is of an aggressive Taiwan that does not recognize them. Here, again, is a negative offshoot of a closed authoritarian system. This could also help explain why the otherwise brilliant, highly educated Chinese academics I’ve met at conferences in Taiwan sounded so antiquated, their views congealed in a time that Taiwan long ago left behind. Sometimes their comments border on the ridicule, and you can see Taiwanese in the room — pan-blue and –green alike — rolling their eyes.

Darren:

There is no doubt whatsoever that there are millions of extraordinary, accomplished, talented individuals in China (I for one am a great admirer of their literature). That said, the CCP’s accomplishments in development aside, the party remains an objectionable organization whose legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese will remain in doubt as long as it denies them the right to chose their own leaders. At present, the CCP exists for the sole purpose of self-perpetuation. Even the intra-party “democracy” it has implemented over the years is meant to ensure its survival rather than experiment with democracy for the sake of liberalization. Academics in the West, as well as in China and Singapore, have all reached this conclusion, so again this argument is not limited to “Western,” Cold War-era anti-communist views of the Chinese political system.

expandingtohigherrealms said...

I think this clears a lot up for me. Taiwan Echo: That's an interesting site. But living in all that time in China, of course I've met many people with many complaints against the government. There are also underground magazines in China that publish photos and articles exposing the government's hypocrisy.

The relationship between disgust and/or criticism of the government is interesting. Michael: You are insistent on clarifying distinct parties within the Tawainese ruling class.

These distinctions exist both in the US and in China. For myself, I just did a demonstration last week against the city government. Even more, I'm an anarchist and a socialist who lives in a neighborhood that the cops write off as a 'rough area', while vigorously going after petty theft at the nearby private university.

What's funny is the idea that in China, criticism of the government equals a rejection of the CCP and the last few decades of it's rule. Yesterday, after posting to your blog in the morning, I ran into a Chinese student here as part of her doctoral program. She told me about meeting a Taiwanese professor and shook her head in incredulity at how ignorant that teacher was.

I know that feeling because that's how it was reading the Chinese papers on the US when I lived in China. It's one thing to say the problem with the government is a particular problem, it's another to say the entire government, thousands of people, has to go.

Ma Ying Jiu was democratically elected, and you still feel that he doesn't represent the majority of Taiwanese people on this life or death issue.

It seems like Taiwan Echo has the attitude that legitimate Chinese voices are those that criticize the government. As someone who hates many of my own government's policies, I sympathize with this view.

On the other hand, scholars and academics throughout the world believe that only democracy confers legitimacy on a government. That is, even if Bush or Obama sends lower class, uneducated Americans to kill or be killed in foreign countries, it's better if this happens in the context of a democracy. That's a fine point to make.

And I guarantee you that a democratic China reformed along the lines of Taiwan will not be so manageable at this point. There is limited power of the people in modern democracies, but it's the people with money and political skill that dominate.

expandingtohigherrealms said...

Also, are you saying that the group that of Chinese people that came to Taiwan after the forties aren't Taiwanese? Then are any of these the 1 million that have seen the ill effects of communism? Chinese themselves differ on the effects of Communism, but many maintain that it granted China independence from colonial threats (which Taiwan is still looking for) and got rid of the baggage of centuries of feudal domination and superstition. I know also about the famines and millions of deaths. The good does not balance out the bad, nor vice versa.

China was made Capitalist by the CCP, and the collective ecomonies that supported millions of people were destroyed. This has caused extreme inequality, exploitation, and death. Of course, most of those scholars that are eager for democracy, likely dismiss this as a necessary corrolary, or mere mismanagement of the transition to capitalist freedom.

As for the legitimacy of the CCP, you also seem to think that they are holding the people of China hostage. Again, sometimes I feel the same way about the Democrats and Republicans. The hundreds of Chinese that I have known, however, must not realized their ignorance in supporting their government.

The CCP exists to perpetuate itself. This, as opposed to democratically elected KMT, or the Rebupblican Party? Isn't that the very problem with the modern nation state? The ruling class maintains power through whatever means it can get away with?

Lastly, who are the crackheads you were referring to?

J. Michael Cole 寇謐將 said...

Hi Darren:

That’s good stuff.

Let me start with this one: “are you saying that the group that of Chinese people that came to Taiwan after the forties aren't Taiwanese?” No, no and no. They are Taiwanese, as long as they identify with this land, which is the case with many of the descendants of the Chinese who came to Taiwan in 1949 (many of whom are my friends here, by the way). What I’m saying is that those who call for unification, or who argue that Taiwanese independence must be fought — which usually entails a KMT/CCP united front — are Chinese who live in Taiwan. It’s not me who’s calling them non-Taiwanese; it is, rather, their own decision not to identify as such, a bit like a descendant of British living in Canada or the US refusing to identify with his or her land. Hence the 5 percent or so, according to the latest United Daily News poll (posted on the KMT Web site), who favor immediate unification, which reflects the actual amount of — and this is tricky language here — “original” Chinese who moved to Taiwan in 1949.

Unlike Taiwan and the US, there are no distinct political parties in China. While there are other political parties, they have no impact whatsoever on policy-making and cannot be seen to work against the CCP, which remains paramount. Countless Chinese academics have pointed this out. While I agree that there is ignorance on both sides of the Taiwan Strait (in fact, ignorance is rampant worldwide), I have met very few Chinese who got Taiwan “right,” from ordinary tourists to supposedly high intellectuals. Now, whether what they say publicly and what they really believe is one and the same remains in doubt. Conversely, while there are lots of Taiwanese ignorants (and Canadian, and American, and French and so on), I have also met many whose views on China were far more refined. Now, this is not eugenics or superiority in any way, shape or form, but simply a reflection of the political environment in which they operate.

Yes, a majority of Taiwanese elected Ma Ying-jeou, and many today are regretting doing so. Even after his “masterpiece,” the ECFA, his popularity levels continue to drop and public trust in the KMT and its legislators is below 20 percent. Most of this stems from dissatisfaction with his China policies (it is now becoming clear that there is no correlation between economic performance, which is doing very well in Taiwan nowadays, and Ma’s popularity levels). Many pro-KMT voters I’ve spoken with in recent months said they would not vote for him again. They did not vote him into office so that he’d sell out Taiwan. They believed he would “revive” the economy and improve ties with the US and Japan. Relations with the US are not necessarily much better, and Taipei has been relentless in its alienation of Tokyo since 2008.

I don’t think criticism of the government necessarily equals opposition to the CCP — at least, I don’t think that’s how a certain segment of Chinese society sees it. That’s certainly how the CCP sees it, though, which also raises the problem of the party being the state, rather than serving it.

I don’t know if only democracy can confer legitimacy on a government, but somehow there has to be a mechanism by which corruption and lack of performance will rid the system of the bad apples. When repression, fear, violence, censorship and co-optation are the only means by which a government stays in power, it’s hard to make a case for its legitimacy. Does China represent a huge challenge in terms of ensuring state stability? Absolutely. Does this give the same government the right to threaten a neighboring democracy? Absolutely not. It is up to the Chinese to deal with those issues. But they should not drag other people into their domestic conflict.

J. Michael Cole 寇謐將 said...

[cont’d]

Agreed, democracies send their sons and daughters (usually from the poorer strata) to wage war abroad. The US does that, as is Canada in Afghanistan, to name but a few. I still believe, though (and I may be naïve here), that the checks and balances that exist in such political systems are sturdier than whatever it is that keeps PLA generals, and ultimately the CMC, in check. In terms of the media, I’d also say that the main difference between democracies and closed, authoritarian systems like China, is that in the former, those who expose the ills of an administration (e.g., the Seymour Hirshes and Bib Woodwards and David Halberstams Robert Fisks of this world) tend to be held in high esteem by large segments of society — including government officials (some of whom may admittedly be doing so to score political points) — than in China, where the state apparatus sees them as a threat (except for the reporters at Xinhua and other state-owned media that produce “mi-mi” reports for government eyes only). I recently read, and reviewed, an excellent book, published by Hong Kong University Press, on investigative journalism in China. There is no doubt that in every case exposed in the book, the brave investigative journalists who exposed high-level corruption and social injustice were reviled by the CCP and treated accordingly, as have the many more who are not discussed in the book. I do agree with you, though, that underground tabloids, as well as nascent publications, are able to expose all kinds of ills in China, as there is demand for such information. Wuer’kaixi, the famous Chinese dissident, himself told me in Taipei a couple of months ago that tabloids and quasi-pornographic publications were the new “in” thing in China nowadays for criticism of the CCP.

On perpetuation as a means in itself. Yes, every political party would like to be in power forever. However, in democracies, if a party in power fails to deliver, chances are it will lose in the next elections. But what of China? What happens if the CCP fails to deliver? Where are the means to change its ways, short of social unrest or (heaven forbid) civil war? I am not as naïve as to think that democracy is perfect, or that it constitutes the “end of history.” However, I do believe that all its flaws notwithstanding, it is the least bad tool that societies have at their disposal.

You write: “The hundreds of Chinese that I have known, however, must not realized their ignorance in supporting their government.” True, but it is unfair to the Chinese to place ignorance in their system alone. There is plenty of that in the US and Canada and everywhere else. It’s even less forgivable in open democratic systems, where people have everything at their disposal to use knowledge as a candle in the dark. We can’t entirely blame ordinary Chinese for their ignorance, given the system in which they live. But Americans? Canadians? Ignorance in such, hum, “enlightened” places is impermissible.

When you ask about the “crackheads,” I assume you mean the Chinese academics who visited Taiwan last year? Former top CCP officials, academics from Fudan University, among others (though he didn’t visit, European-educated Jian Junbo serves as a perfect example of what I’m talking about).

This is a very interesting and far-reaching debate, Darren, and though we may disagree on a number of items, I find it very useful and appreciate the manner in which it is being conducted.

Taiwan Echo said...

expandingtohigherrealms: "Ma Ying Jiu was democratically elected, and you still feel that he doesn't represent the majority of Taiwanese people on this life or death issue."

You could argue that Ma was elected so he represented the majority at the time of election, but that doesn't mean he represents the majority voices of Taiwanese at all time. The fact that Ma's approval rate has been lingering around 20~30% for a long time proves that what he represents now is actually the minority.

If you don't like the current US gov and the way Obama handles things, you should have known this by heart.

"It seems like Taiwan Echo has the attitude that legitimate Chinese voices are those that criticize the government."

Don't know how you got that idea. The reason I cited that website (热血汉奸 ) is to counter Darren's view. In fact what Chinese voices about their gov are legitimate is China's business. What I care is how China treats Taiwan.

One thing always frustrates me in my experiences of interacting with Chinese intellectuals is that they can talk about democracy, freedom, human right, independence ... etc etc, as though that they know every element of modern democracy values. But whenever I asked how they apply that to Taiwan, their tone changed immediately, saying that it's a different story, that something else supersedes whatever rights Taiwanese could have, as though Taiwanese can only be secondary citizen living under their feet.

It is, in fact, hundreds of years of discrimination in progress, which you can trace it in historic documents.

Ironically, in this tug of war, Taiwanese - the side fighting against discrimination and domination - is always the side to blame, even in the eyes of many westerners. Is it true that the modern human right values don't apply to Taiwanese ?

Darren said...

Michael, I think I’m starting to relate more to where you’re coming from.

One of the main issues here seems to be one of labels, which in turn seems to have become increasingly problematic when the CCP gained acceptance as the actual government of China. People shouldn’t be bothered about the labels they choose for themselves, unless of course those labels are needed as a smokescreen for a political struggle, where abstract entities like nations and races are said to be in conflict, and to possess one another. It’s not a Chinese thing. I assure that no matter how many times most Americans have praised democracy, most will deny the right of the south to secede before the Civil War, just as much as they will deny the sovereignty of His Majesty over the thirteen colonies.

However, I have to say that every Tawainese movie, song, book, and person I have encountered seems pretty Chinese to me. Although in regards to Taiwanese movies and people, the tradtional patriarchal family structure seems more in evidence. And though I feel a bit petty saying this, the comparison of mainlanders in Taiwan to British Americans belies the relative unity of the Britain and the Founding Fathers. One big difference is that the British lost the ‘revolution’, while the colonists won. And comparing Taiwan to America, America was founded primarily, if not solely, by the invading and occupying land inhabited by other peoples. And this country has ever since employed a kind of ancestral worship, where our founding fathers and their agreements must always guide our nation.

Darren said...

To Taiwan Echo, I understand you're frustration.

“The fact that Ma's approval rate has been lingering around 20~30% for a long time proves that what he represents now is actually the minority.” Yes, and over here, a minority votes for the president as when only half the voters choose the winner, and sometimes half the eligible voters don’t choose anybody. In calculating the CCP’s support among it’s people, we might say: How can they choose the CCP when they have nothing else to choose from? Similarly, how can we say that Taiwanese people wouldn’t have voted for some kind of Communist party when they’ve not been free to choose or promote communism until recently? People decide their support of the government based on how the government seems to effect them and the wider society. They might like their one party if they feel it’s working towards the interests, and it is not conceivable that the CCP might actually not be harming the majority of Chinese citizens. It might even be beneficial to some.

“What I care is how China treats Taiwan.” Fair enough. Then I think you would be calling for reconciliation and mutual de-arming? Otherwise, Taiwan will inevitably loose out against the CCP. Is the idea that if enough countries turn against the human-rights-violating CCP, Taiwan will be safer? The need for cheap labor and access to greater markets will continue to make China stronger and stronger, as Taiwanese, Japanese, Americans, and other peoples continue to build their human-rights-less factories and distribution centers there.

Rights are superseded by many things, again you might recall the civil war in my own country where voting for secession wasn’t enough for everyone else to recognize the will of those people. Rights are constructed and agreed upon by particular societies. This construction and agreement is precisely the problem we always find ourselves in.

“Is it true that the modern human right values don't apply to Taiwanese?” Rights, like free speech, are another kind of tool we can use to fight domination and injustice, but why would the US support Taiwan when it was a military dictatorship more than it does now? Economics supersede rights, as does the pursuit of power and domination.

mike said...

"...the positive effects of the CCP and Communism.."

Name just one, I dare you.

Darren Taylor said...

Mike.

A dare? Perhaps you feel indignant that the decades of infamy ushered in by the tyrannical CCP should be considered as having beneficial effects on China?

The CCP broke down patriarchal and class distinctions, to a large extent. They brought in limited worker democracy. The party mobilized the peasants to build schools, organize cultural events, and improve infrastructure.

The CCP broke down the chauvinist patriarchal family structure to a large extent.

In more recent times, the CCP has done a good job of bringing in a capitalist economy without being overtaken by foreign capitalists. They've ensured independence for China, rather than Japanese, European, and American domination, as was the norm before they came to power.

Also, they ended the long lived feudal theocracy.

Let us not get into a they did good things vs they did bad things argument. The fact is that you cannot cancel good policies of the CCP by referring to bad policies of the CCP. It all happened, and should all be understood for how we plan our future.

mike said...

"Let us not get into a they did good things vs they did bad things argument."

What a detestably disrespectful comment on the sheer enormity of CCP crimes against innocent people - there can be no possibility of decency in any "vs" there.

Whatever, it is completely unnecessary; all of these "beneficial effects" you refer to, where they are not either dubious considering what replaced them (e.g. "broke down patriarchal and class distinctions"), or abjectly stupid ("worker democracy") are things ("build schools", "improve infrastructure") which could, in theory, have been achieved far more frequently and far more efficiently under a system of limited government, property rights and foreign investment. And these achievements could have been made many times over, perhaps throughout the entire country and without subjecting millions upon millions of poor innocents to entirely unnecessary, multiple and enormous evils. But it's all pointless counterfactual nonsense now anyway. A village here or there... your attempt to defend the CCP is thoroughly contemptible and so are you.

"In more recent times, the CCP has done a good job of bringing in a capitalist economy without being overtaken by foreign capitalists. They've ensured independence for China, rather than Japanese, European, and American domination, as was the norm before they came to power."

China is not a capitalist country - whatever anyone else in the papers (perhaps such as your extremely accommodating host here) might say. The principle and corollaries of private property as instituted in China cannot withstand any sort of serious pressure. And as for "independence"... what do you think will happen to Chinese workers when consumer demand in the U.S. and the E.U. takes another nosedive?

I said it to Turton the other day - I'll be amazed and horrified if the CCP sees out the next decade. They are coming closer every year to the verge of collapse, and they know it.

Darren said...

“What a detestably disrespectful comment on the sheer enormity of CCP crimes”

My point is that benefits do not cancel out crimes. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the reorganization of society under the CCP. And some of these lessons concern good outcomes of Communist policies.

I imagine you think middle aged Chinese people should feel bad they weren’t born in Taiwan. As a citizen of a country that has butchered millions of people in two hundred years of aggressive wars, I know how it is to like one’s country, even though you don’t like a lot of horrible things you’re governments done. Chinese today don’t think the Communist era was great or noble, nor Deng Xiaoping. That’s why they went capitalist.


“which could, in theory, have been achieved far more frequently and far more efficiently under a system of limited government, property rights and foreign investment. And these achievements could have been made many times over”

cephaloless said...

Just pointing out something else against CCP's "benefits":

KMT moved China into the "democracy" phase in 1946 with first open election (they had a phase plan to bring China into the modern world). Best case scenario without CCP taking over, China (including Taiwan this time) looks like it did in 1980 by 1950 or 1960 complete with decent relations with the western powers. Worst case, CKS and family gets "reelected" over and over again and China isn't "opened up" until the 1980's. And taiwan probably already had multiple riot sessions like the 228 incident.

But, I also think KMT was pushed into moving out of the "guidance(authoritarian)" phase to the "democratic" phase by pressure from the CCP so an opposition party like that is needed for that best case scenario to happen. My point is China was on it's way to the post Mao CCP style rule and pretty much all the benefits of CCP rule would have happened but probably earlier and with less turmoil. I'm not a KMT or CCP supporter but I like to think of the possibilities.

Just my 2 unstamped penny sized disks.