An odd event across the Strait

China's "united front" campaign against Taiwan moved into new territory when Beijing marked Retrocession Day yesterday. Over decades , China has ignored this day, but this year Beijing invited members of Taiwan's opposition parties and senior Chinese leaders to take part in three days of festivities.

When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was in power, Retrocession Day was a big event in Taiwan, but after the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) took the presidency, this changed. The new government's interpretation is that Oct. 25 signifies no more than the end of the Sino-Japanese War, and is not related to Taiwan's sovereignty. For this reason, commemorative activities in Taiwan were much more low key this year.

It is awkward for Beijing to celebrate the victory in the Sino-Japanese war, as the KMT led efforts in the war against Japan, not the Chinese Communist Party.

But China's celebrations are also a jab at Japan. With tensions between the two countries on the rise, China can use the event to remind the international community of Japan's World War II atrocities and consolidate its image as a victor in the war. Beijing achieves the double goal of obstructing Japan's bid for a permanent UN Security Council seat and consolidating its superpower status on diplomatic, military and economic fronts.

China also aims to create the impression that Taiwan is a part of China.

In fact, the sovereignty of Taiwan and that of China are completely unrelated. The 1951 San Francisco Treaty states that Japan renounces all right, title and claims to Formosa and the Pescadores. But nowhere does it specify that sovereignty was returned to the Republic of China (ROC), let alone the People's Republic of China.

Former president Lee Teng-hui was referring to this when he said during his recent visit to the US that the ROC ceased to exist after it was driven out of China in 1949. After 1949, the ROC sojourned on Taiwan, but at no stage did it ever possess sovereignty.

Sovereignty is vested in Taiwan's inhabitants. It has therefore long existed as a sovereign nation. All that remains is for this to be recognized by a change of the national title and constitutional amendments.

When Chen Yi, under orders from former generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, took over Taiwan on Oct. 25, 1945, he was acting simply as a representative of the Allied forces. It did not mark a transfer of sovereignty.

The early days of KMT rule in Taiwan were characterized by the 228 Incident and then the White Terror, with 38 years of martial law. The initial wave of sentiment in Taiwan about returning to the embrace of the ancestral country was destroyed by these events. But the idea of Taiwan's retrocession was inculcated into the collective memory of the Taiwanese people by its masters. It was only after the KMT lost power in 2000 that the people of Taiwan were able to adequately reflect on the true situation.

On Oct. 25, 1945, Taiwan saw the end of 50 years of Japanese colonial government and World War II hostilities, but it was immediately plunged into yet another period of rule by foreign overlords. Now, Oct. 25 is seen as the end of the war, and a cause for neither joy nor sorrow. One thing is certain: The fate of this nation now rests solely in the hands of its citizens.

New cultural discourse key for DPP

By Huang Ter-yuan

`No matter whether the nation pursues unification or independence, the lack of a cultural discourse will only chip away at the nation's political consciousness and deprive Taiwanese of their rights.'

The media have recently been attempting to tell the public that the government has become so incompetent and corrupt that the nation's economic growth rate has plunged to an unprecedented low. This message has made the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) look like it is riddled with scandal and as if its glory days have come to an end.

Has the DPP become such a terrible party? Has the party actually lost its founding spirit, or is the public expecting too much of it? If the DPP hasn't failed us, why would so many people have such a negative opinion of it? Is it because we are being misled by what we see, or are we in fact witnessing how power is corrupting politicians?

Let us compare the international community's take on Taiwan with the local media's view.

According to the latest annual report by Freedom House, an organization that rates freedom from country to country, after the transfer of power in 2000, the measure of civil liberties in Taiwan was rated equal to that of other democratic nations such as Britain, France and Germany.

Second, according to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, Taiwan ranked first in Asia in both the growth competitiveness index and the technology index. Compared with the rest of the world, Taiwan still ranked fourth and third in these two indices. Taiwan even ranked 26th out of 117 countries in the public institutions index, a category in which Taiwan has ordinarily lagged behind.

In May, Business Week magazine ran a cover story entitled "Why Taiwan Matters," with a subhead that read, "The global economy couldn't function without it." This pointed to the vital role the nation has been playing in a globalized world.

While the international media tends to think highly of Taiwan, the nation's media outlets prefer an endless stream of sensational headlines and coverage of political bickering. There is perhaps cause to say that the media is responsible for the degree of political confrontation.

In cultural studies, politics is not about parties clashing with one another to seize power, but a process in which parties contend for cultural hegemony. The struggle is not confined to the field defined by political science, but extends to a wide range of social discourses.

In the early days, when the DPP was debating the direction it should take, a "Scissors Theory" called for various expression of social activism but said that the party should act in unison at election time. After five years in government, however, the DPP has realized that what it needs is a specific cultural discourse to back up its reform drive.

It is the lack of a clear cultural discourse that led the DPP to shoulder all the "debts to society" incurred by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) when it took power in 2000. How ironic it is that those pan-blues who used to enjoy a great deal of privilege have now cast themselves as "upholders" of democracy and justice.

While growing in strength in the international arena, China has been making every effort to belittle Taiwan. Some Taiwanese also denigrate their own nation, gradually depriving this country of its political identity. The constant repetition of terminology undermining Taiwanese identity can only have a harmful effect.

One Russian political commentator has suggested that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with its military and economic failure, but was because the "cultural core" of Russian society came under attack, calling into question the legitimacy of Soviet rule. Once this was substantially undermined, the dissolution of the Soviet Empire became inevitable.

This hypothesis can serve as a reminder for Taiwanese that no matter whether the nation pursues unification or independence, the lack of a cultural discourse will only chip away at the nation's political consciousness and deprive Taiwanese of their rights.

The DPP must therefore seek a new strategy if it wants to gain the upper hand in its dealings with the pan-blue camp and the Chinese Communist Party.

Huang Ter-yuan is a doctoral candidate in the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.