Taiwan not a province of China on July 12, 2004

Taiwan not a province of China

The recent cancellation of a concert by Taiwanese pop-star A-mei in Hangzhou caused a strong reaction in Taiwan. Taiwanese Internet users are now trying to initiate boycotts of Chinese and Hong Kong artists to stop them from performing in Taiwan. Giving the tense cross-strait situation, people on either side of the Taiwan Strait trying to intensify the antagonistic mood does not help China’s anti-independence, pro-unification efforts.

Although the incident may have been the result of an independent action by some people in China, and although it was described as an "isolated incident'' by China's Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO), it reflected the fact that both officials and the general public in China still do not understand Taiwan and take a simplistic and rigid approach to cross-strait issues. It also showed that the relevant Chinese authorities have neglected to direct the general public's understanding of the complexity of the Taiwan issue and to' inform them of the correct ways to treat the people of Taiwan.

This has led a minority of people in China to confuse populism with patriotism. We all know that A-mei is a very popular singer in Taiwan. Her recent experience will undoubtedly deepen suspicion and dislike of China among the people in Taiwan in general and the younger generation in particular. It seems it is not a mere “isolate incident.”

Beijing recently declared that it does not welcome "green" businesspeople coming to China to make money only to bring it back to Taiwan to support Taiwan's independence. But the Taiwanese public at large should not be labelled "green" for every little action.

There is still no evidence that A-mei is as staunch a proponent of Taiwan's independence as Hsu Wen-lung. The only indication of her green leanings is the fact that she sang the national anthem at Chen Shui-bian's 2000 inauguration.

A-mei is only an Aboriginal girl who likes to sing -- she has probably not formed any fixed political beliefs. Even if she is guilty of some small impropriety, is could be treated as a matter of increasing mutual understanding within the framework for cross-strait cultural exchanges. After all she is still very young.

In fact, when handing things for other people, we must consider the other party's situation and feelings instead of labelling anyone who doesn't meet the PRC's description as an enemy, Consider A-mei's situation－when the Taiwanese authorities asked her to sing her national anthem, how could she refuse?  

Although some people in Taiwan support independence, the people of China should understand and forgive them. Taiwanese friend once told me that "China must understand and forgive the people of Taiwan, treat them with tolerance and magnanimity, and understand the hardship of being the orphan of Asia.                     

"Apart from a few politicians with ulterior motives, China must show tolerance towards those who may have shouted slogans in support of Taiwan independence in the past and not further investigate them. This, and only this, is the behavior of a great nation with concern for its own people," he said.

The song A-mei sang four fid  years ago was the National Anthem of the Republic of China(ROC). She was punished for doing so, and could not perform Chin for a few years. This is related to the way China deals with the so-called Taiwan issue.

The majority of the Taiwanese people to this day still identify with the ROC, Beijing has to handle this sensitive and complex issue satisfactorily if it is to win the hearts and minds of the people in Taiwan.          

There are some contradictions, however. On the one hand, Beijing cannot tolerate any name that includes "ROC" or the appearance of any of its symbols, such as national flag or anthem, but on the other hand, it opposes the Democratic Progressive      Party (DPP) government's writing a new constitution and getting rid of the ROC's national title, flag and anthem. I have still not heard of any measures by Beijing attempting to explain and solve these contradictions.

From a legal perspective, there was a transfer of government power on Chinese soil in 1949, and in 1971, the UN recognized the People's Republic of China as China's only legal government. From that moment on, the ROC was no longer a sovereign nation with the accorded legal status, and thus, can no longer be treated as a complete international entity. There is no legal basis for calling the ROC a sovereign and independent state. It is completely legitimate for the PRC to oppose "two Chinas" in the international arena, the "state-to-state" model and the "one country on each side" approach to the cross-strait relationship.                                                                                         

From a realist point of view, although the old Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government was defeated, it wasn't annihilated. Due to many reasons, it continued to exist and develop under the name of the ROC in what I view as one of the China's provinces. Although it is no longer a sovereign state, it still controls a part of what I believe is China's territory and people, and it also maintains some ability to handle diplomatic relations. This is an objective fact that Beijing cannot refute.

More importantly, the ROC is the only political symbol Taiwan's historical identification with China. If the Taiwanese do away with the ROC, they can only identify with Taiwan. Beijing has consistently opposed the appearance of the national title "ROC" and its national flag within the cross-strait relationship framework, and it even opposes all and any appearance of the word ”national,”” China," and "Central"  in names and titles. This has not only hurt the feelings of the people in Taiwan, it has also provided what I like to call the executive authorities in Taiwan with a focus for their desinicization agenda.

In my view, the solution to this problem lies in continued firm opposition to the appearance of the ROC in the international arena and any attempts to create "two Chinas." Within the framework of the cross-strait relationship, however, China   should tolerate and respect the people in Taiwan who identify with the ROC. A fuzziness regarding these issues should be tolerated. But publications, documents, meetings and so on where the title, national flag and other ROC symbols appear     should not be suppressed in cross-strait exchanges.

The long-term perspective should be that the ROC and the PRC are merely political symbols during a transitional period. There is no need for excessive bickering, and both parties should be unselfish. After all, the ROC is also China. The real      problem will only be if the people in Taiwan discard the ROC and change their identity to the Republic of Taiwan.

Zhang Jla-lin is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was former special assistant to Wang Daohan, president of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait.

TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON

KMT learning from mistakes

The current internal power struggle in Beijing for control of the Central Military Commission is an interesting contrast to the current dilemma faced by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leaders in Taiwan.

Both the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT are organized loosely around Marxist-Leninist ideology, which may be characterized as rather rigid and authoritarian. Thus the ability of these parties to adapt and to retain their legitimacy is being tested, but in two very different environments.

On the one hand, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is again locked in a bitter internal feud to see which faction -- the one led by Chinese President Hu Jintao or his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, knows what is best for the people. It seems like these internal power struggles are periodic events that often result in social upheavals, such as the Cultural Revolution or the Tiananmen Square Massacre. It is a competition where the elite use personal connections to jockey their cronies into key positions and thus win power and influence. No wonder corruption and nepotism are self-acknowledged to be rampant -- these methods are precisely how an authoritarian system operates to select its leaders.

The KMT's problems are organizational. After democratization, they believed that by staying the same course they have steered for the past 50 years, they could hold onto power in the same illiberal way as the Liberal Democratic Party has done in Japan or the Institutional Revolutionary Party in Mexico. They assumed that people crave continuity and fear change, not realizing that once voters saw that the world didn't end with the election of President Chen Shui-bian, they would now actually have to develop competitive platforms and policies as in a true liberal democracy.

Even after being beaten several times at the polls, however, the same tragic human lust for power has allowed a clique of leaders to hinder the much-needed party reform process. KMT Chairman Lien Chan, or "Big brother Lien," as his followers have nicknamed him, and PFP Chairman James Soong have not grasped the dynamic change that Taiwan and its people have undergone, making them dinosaurs on the democratic landscape.

But there is hope for the KMT as internal grumbling and external failure has awoken many to the need for reform. By changing to meet the needs of the people they hope to represent, they will also offer hope for a vibrant democracy built on multiparty competition.

As Samuel Huntington once pointed out, while democracies may sometimes seem loud and unruly, they are in fact the most stable political systems because people can find non-violent outlets for their demands. Street protests in Taiwan are not a sign of weakness, but rather of the system working properly.

But on the other side of the strait, tired CCP officials try to pass off oligarchy for "democratic centralism" and attempts to legitimate their ideologically bankrupt regime on the dated notion of pan-Chinese nationalism. The KMT is learning that the lack of intra-party openness leads to poor electoral outcomes. In the same way, neither the international community nor the people of Taiwan will trust China as long as its internal politics are mired in oblique backroom power struggles closed to public accountability.

What these two internal party struggles show is that indeed, the idea that Taiwan should be part of China because of some common, yet distant, historical origin ignores the more relevant recent history of de facto separation and development.

Vladimir Lenin was buried long ago; let's also bury his party system.

Albert Chen   Taipei

Another state funeral not required

The Chiang family has decided to bury former presidents Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo, and has therefore asked the government's permission to bury them here in Taiwan. The government, already dealing with the issue, is planning a burial in the military mausoleum on Wuchih Mountain around the time of Tomb Sweeping Day next year.

The question of whether the two Chiangs should be given a state funeral has, however, led to disputes domestically. Considering both international and domestic factors, although affirming the interment of the two in Taiwan as an act of identification with Taiwan, we believe that a family funeral, not a state funeral, is the appropriate ceremony.

Both Chiangs were given a state funeral attended by international guests after their deaths. The two were not, however, buried in Taiwan, because they were to be buried in Nanjing once China had been retaken. If, 30 years on, the two are buried in the military mausoleum on Wuchih Mountain and once again given a state funeral, it must once again be an international ceremony. But we only die once, and there is no international precedent where a second official funeral is held after the first. If the two now are given a second state funeral, the international community may have problems understanding how they have managed to die a second death, 30 and 17 years after their first. And those who participated in the funeral ceremony the first time will probably find it very strange to participate in a second funeral ceremony for the same person.

The three state funerals for the two Chiangs will have been held in 1975, 1988 and 2005, three different years with strong symbolism representing three stages in Taiwan's political development. Under the totalitarian dictatorship of the Chiang family, vice president Yen Chia-kan succeeded Chiang Kai-shek as president in 1975, but Chiang Ching-kuo used his powers as premier and chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to arrange a funeral comparable to those of the old emperors.

When Chiang Ching-kuo passed away 17 years ago, Taiwan's party democracy had already begun to take shape, but the KMT still utilized martial law to control Taiwan. Although vice president Lee Teng-hui took over the presidential seat, he still did not have any substantial power. With the help of the party-state apparatus, Chiang Ching-kuo's funeral, though not as splendid as his father's, still followed the State Funeral Law.

The proposal to bury the two Chiangs according to the State Funeral Law and mobilize all Taiwanese to pay their respects, is not set in stone. Taiwan's democracy has matured, the knowledge of the Taiwanese people has taken great strides forward, and there are differing opinions of the two Chiangs. If the government holds another state funeral for the two, it may lead to polarization and conflict between pro-Chiang and anti-Chiang groups. For a Taiwan that has been divided since the presidential election this March, this would unnecessarily intensify this division.

The Chinese custom of collecting the bones of the deceased and moving them into another tomb or grave after several years of interment remains a family ritual where no one outside the family is invited. The interment of the two former presidents is just a burial ceremony that has remained incomplete for 30 and 17 years, respectively. It should be a family ceremony.

The government's responsibility is just to exert its best to help complete the burial rather than to hold a second pompous state funeral, which might lead to domestic instability and international astonishment.