20030924

Old China versus modern Taiwan

By Chiou Chwei-liang

Former president Lee Teng-hui defined relations between China and Taiwan as "special state-to-state" in nature. President Chen Shui-bian declared that there is "one country on either side" of the Taiwan Strait, namely Taiwan and China. In contrast, China insists on the "one China" principle, that Taiwan is part of China and that the PRC is the only legitimate government of China.

The disputes over sovereignty and independence between these two sides are absolute and definite, leaving no room for ambiguity and compromise. This controversy over national identity and sovereignty is serious but superficial. At a deeper level, China and Taiwan face differences and a clash between old, traditional civilization and new, modern civilization. Though different from the "clash of civilizations" predicted by political scholar Samuel Huntington, they are equally serious, deep and long-standing and must not be neglected.

Early this month, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission sent me to North America to speak to expatriates in Canada at six democracy and peace seminars. My main task was to elaborate on and promote Huntington's theory of the "third wave of democratization," and the trends of globalization, freedom and democracy as proposed by political scientist Francis Fukuyama, the causal relationship between democracy and peace, and the modern, civilized concept that China and Taiwan must resolve their national conflicts by peaceful, not military, means.

This task was clear and the logic seems to be simple and easy to understand. But in fact, I was constantly challenged and questioned by pro-China, pro-unification people. Although I tried my best to offer my answers and explanations, the war of words over a clash of "two civilizations" always ended in disagreement.

After China launched economic reforms, its people have rushed to migrate to democratic and advanced countries such as the US, Canada, Australia and those in Europe. The six cities I visited -- especially Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa -- have attracted a large number of Chinese immigrants since Canada eased its migration policies. Of the 500,000 ethnic Chinese residing in Toronto (including Taiwanese expatriates), 400,000 are from China.

Chinese immigrants in Canada are therefore powerful and influential. Most of them trumpet unification and oppose Taiwan's independence movement. They have organized activities to oppose Taiwan's independence and advocate unification, which are of course backed by the Beijing government. This has become an evident challenge to the national identity of Taiwanese expatriates.

Each of the seminars was attended by Chinese immigrants, who were always eager to attack my theory as soon as I finished my speech. The gist of their arguments is: China's long and glorious history is founded on Chinese people's traditional civilization of unification; over the past several thousand years, nationality, nation and state always override individual freedom, self-determination, human rights and dignity; and therefore, traditional nationalism carries more weight than individuals, freedom, human rights, self-determination and democratism.

Simply put, the state is more significant than people, and sovereignty is more crucial than democracy. This is opposition to democratization in China from the viewpoint of cultural theory.

They also argued that Chinese people are impoverished and poorly educated, and their economic development has fallen behind. Therefore, they said, liberalization and democratization are not suitable for China. In contemporary China, feeding people is the priority; neither freedom nor democracy are important. This is opposition to democratization in China from the viewpoint of economic theory.

This is also the argument and discourse Beijing's communist regime uses to oppose political modernization, liberalization and democratization, oppose Taiwanese people's right to self-determination and oppose holding referendums to make Taiwan an independent country.

There is indeed some logic behind the idea of a clash between traditional and modern civilizations. But against the backdrop of today's speedy developments in liberalization, democratization and globalization, these arguments have become outdated and even fallacious.

Although they could not come up with persuasive reasons after I offered my earnest and detailed explanations, I knew their nationalism was so deep-rooted that they still were not persuaded to understand and support the basic human rights and humanity that Taiwanese people should enjoy to hold referendums and decide Taiwan's future.

It is hard for them to accept the mainstream opinions that Taiwan is not an inalienable part of China and that Taiwan is an independent sovereign state.

After two weeks of speeches, I felt spent and anxious. Since it is difficult enough to convince the millions of Chinese immigrants, how can we persuade the 1.3 billion Chinese people, who have lived under Communist China's authoritarian rule and been brainwashed by "grand unification" nationalism?

A chill runs down my back every time I think about this.

Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asia Studies at Tamkang University.

Powell berates China for poor human rights record

REUTERS , WASHINGTON

US Secretary of State Colin Powell berated China on Monday for not doing enough to improve its human rights record but thanked Beijing for its efforts on North Korea.

A State Department official said Powell had urged Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing during talks at the State Department to make Beijing act on promises made at US-China human rights talks last December.

"The secretary took note of our disappointment that China had not moved forward to implement commitments made at last year's human rights dialogue and subsequently discussed by Assistant Secretary of State [Lorne] Craner during his March trip to China," said the official, who asked not to be named.

Craner, the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor who attended Monday's meeting, has been strongly critical of China's rights record.

The US is troubled by China's refusal to allow UN human rights investigators to examine allegations that China jails people without due process.

China also promised to allow a US Commission on International Religious Freedom to visit but the trip was postponed after China insisted the group not visit Hong Kong.

Washington is also concerned about the execution of a Tibetan, the arrests of a number of pro-democracy activists and harsh sentences handed down to labor protesters and others.

The State Department official said Powell and Li had also discussed North Korea, the Middle East, the situation in Iraq and nonproliferation during their talks.

"The secretary reaffirmed our commitment to a strong, cooperative relationship with China and again expressed appreciation for China's efforts in the recently concluded six-party talks on North Korea in Beijing," the official said.

Diplomats from the US, South Korea, North Korea, Japan and Russia met in China last month for talks aimed at curbing the nation's nuclear weapons program.

The talks produced no breakthrough but the six nations have agreed to meet again on a date still to be determined..

Chunghwa union protests privatization

ORGANIZED LABOR: Police say 4,200 to 4,500 people were on hand to demonstrate against plans to privatize the telecom giant and to demand improved job protection

By Joy Su

STAFF REPORTER

About 5,000 supporters gathered peacefully outside the legislature yesterday morning to join the Chunghwa Telecom Workers' Union in protesting against the government's privatization policies.

The demonstration coincided with Premier Yu Shyi-kun's delivery of a national policy report at the Legislative Yuan and did not affect service at Chunghwa Telecom.

Despite an invitation from the union, Cabinet officials failed to appear at the rally.

Union chairman Chang Hsu-chung concluded the rally at 12:30pm, saying union members from Taipei could return to work.

Chang also plans to stage a public debate in February at which the presidential candidates would spell out their stance on privatization.

While Yu failed to attend the rally, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Lee Chia-chin, People First Party (PFP) caucus whip Chou Hsi-wei and independent Legislator Chen Chin-ding took part.

The three signed an agreement to revise the Statute Governing the Privatization of State-run Enterprises.

DPP Legislator Tsao Chi-hung was noncommittal on the agreement, saying he would consider bringing the amendments before a legislative subcommittee for negotiation.

A revision of article five of the statute would compel the government to announce employment conditions six months before the privatization of state enterprises, while changes to article eight would guarantee that pensions and salaries remain unchanged after privatization.

Chunghwa Telecom chairman Hochen Tan, speaking at a press conference yesterday, said he was comforted by the union's reasonable demonstration. Hochen said he was optimistic about discussions with the union, adding he believed it was unnecessary for the union to take to the streets.

He said it was unacceptable for the union to claim that privatization was playing into the hands of big business, stressing that Chunghwa Telecom's selling of shares was always fair and open to the public.

In response to the union's request for post-privatization employment and salary guarantees, Chunghwa Telecom said in a press release that the Executive Yuan was already in the process of drawing up a suitable contract.

At the demonstration, union members stood in the rain, shouting slogans, singing songs, blowing whistles and waving flags. Chang called it a "fight for dignity."

Yu Jia-hua, a union representative, estimated that around 6,000 to 7,000 supporters were present, while police put the figure at around 4,200 to 4,500.

One 70-year-old man stood alone in the rain holding up a sign that accused the union of receiving special employment privileges, calling them "royal laborers."

Union leaders from abroad were also in attendance. Dan Dwyer, a representative from Union Network International, explained that after privatization, service in rural and unprofitable areas would be abandoned.

Monica Hogan, a Communications Workers of America (CWA) representative, said the CWA has lobbied the US Securities and Exchange Commission to block the overseas sale of Chunghwa Telecom shares.

People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong said on Monday he would like to revive the defunct provincial government if he wins power in next year's election. By expressing his intent to bring a corrupt ancien regime back to life, Soong has revealed his obsession with paving the way for his candidacy in the 2008 presidential election. Taiwan's electorate should be alert to this conspiracy.

At a press conference announcing the release of a book by PFP Legislator Lu Hsueh-chang, Soong said it had been inappropriate to downsize the provincial government, which now exists as little more than a name. He said that if he and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan win the election, he wants to restore some of its mechanisms to take care of the "provincial people."

We all know that the provincial government required a NT$200 billion budget. We also know that, during his tenure as provincial governor, Soong spent several tens of billions of NT dollars every year building connections within the local factions, leaving the provincial government to shoulder debts amounting to hundreds of billions of NT dollars. All this now must be paid with taxpayer's money. One of the reasons why former president Lee Teng-hui called for the downsizing of the provincial government was that Taiwan is a small country and does not need four levels of government -- central, provincial, county and township. Therefore, in accordance with the government reform plan following the amendments to the Constitution, the government structure was simplified to three levels so as to avoid bureaucratic redundancy, cut the government's excessive personnel expenses and improve administrative efficiency and team spirit. Demolishing the provincial government was thus in the interests of a majority of the people.

As we all know, Soong has reached a tacit agreement with Lien on the succession of political power -- regardless of whether they win next year's election, Lien will not run again in 2008, so Soong will have a chance to run for president. This is the primary reason why Soong wants to revive the provincial government -- he wants to use it to install people in central and southern Taiwan to campaign for him in the 2008 election. There is no real intent to serve the people. Soong's political machinations should be obvious to everyone.

Recently, Legislative Yuan speaker Wang Jin-pyng, who is also a KMT vice chairman, expressed doubts about the Lien-Soong ticket. He asked reporters whether the Lien-Soong union was for the overall interests of the Taiwanese public or the private interests of Lien and Soong. These doubts raised by a veteran politician deserve attention from the Taiwanese public. Even Wang seems to have had enough of Soong's behind-the-scenes deals to share the spoils of power.

If Soong succeeds in his ambitions to revive the provincial government, this would not only contravene the trends of the times but also cost the people hundreds of billions of NT dollars every year. By bringing back the provincial government, Soong perhaps wants to gradually make Taiwan a local government of China and accept Beijing's "one country, two systems" position. For the sake of our future generations, Taiwan's voters would do well to carefully observe the political ambitions hidden deep inside Soong's heart.