Taking up the peace challenge
　

By Shih Chih-yu 石之瑜
Friday, Feb 13, 2009, Page 8

LATELY, THE DEMOCRATIC Progressive Party (DPP) has been searching for a new socio-political direction. I would like to propose making “peace” one of its core values.

Peace has always been a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) slogan used to counter Taiwanese independence and, after regaining power, to promote nation-building.

However, the peace that the KMT touts only pertains to the absence of war across the Taiwan Strait — it couldn’t care less if other nations blow each other up. The result is that in Taiwan, peace has nothing to do with real peace and neither the government nor the media care about reporting on international or even regional conflicts.

This shows that peace is neither a value or a philosophy. At most, it merely refers to the pleasantries senior members of the KMT exchange with Chinese officials during their dealings. Put simply, the KMT thinks that peace means “not clashing with China” and hiding if it arouses Beijing’s ire.

This is a hypocritical form of peace — “as long as you don’t fight me, I don’t care what you do.” This idea of peace is a false one. The KMT’s policy of no unification, no independence and no use of force is just an attempt to maintain a peaceful show of Taiwanese living in a secure environment. However, since the KMT has never been concerned with real peace, it is having trouble establishing any credibility when it comes to peace.

Of course other observers believe the KMT has another agenda and that it wouldn’t mind going to war if it were sure of victory. Peace, in that case, only becomes an opportunity for the government to prepare for war, purchasing weapons and staging military exercises.

Such a concept of peace fails to bring momentum; rather, it brings restriction. For the KMT, peace means that Taiwan cannot be unified and cannot gain independence. This sort of peace is not something that people crave, but rather a smothering form of pressure. This is because any action can be interpreted as a move toward independence or unification. It leads to an abundance of conspiracy theories, prompting the KMT to repeatedly say that it doesn’t favor unification or independence, thus blocking both and turning “peace” into a self-negating set of commands.

China accepts the KMT’s peace policies not because it favors peace, but because it does not have enough clout yet and must rely on these “peace initiatives” to win more time and space to maneuver and take Taiwan.

The KMT also sees the situation in the same way and, as an opportunistic administrative machine, there is nothing it cannot do. However, to the Taiwanese public whose opinion differs, the KMT is cold and uninteresting and makes people lose interest and the passion for life.

Many countries have been established on the basis of peace. Peace became part of Sweden’s founding spirit when it decided to take an active part in resolving international conflicts. Another example is Japanese Buddhist peace organization Soka Gakkai International, which merges religion with humanitarian practices to turn peace into a form of social practice.

Yet other examples are Mahatma Gandhi’s use of non-cooperation, non-violence and peaceful resistance against the British in India and Mozi (墨子), a Chinese philosopher and the founder of Mohism, who advocated deterring tyranny by building enough strength to drive the enemy back and then simply holding one’s ground. While these methods vary, they show us how peace can become a life-defining philosophy and belief.

Once peace becomes a philosophy, it becomes a force for life. Once politicians believe in and embrace peace, they reduce military forces and emphasize neutrality. The public also becomes more willing to sacrifice their time, resources and the safety of their families for peace, and they will not fear going to war-torn countries, disaster areas and barren lands. Faced with those who use peace as an excuse to recuperate and prepare themselves for more war, peace advocates can only take part in active persuasion and aid, but they will never give in.

Peace is just a slogan in Taiwan, and at most a temporary measure for gaining economic benefit or dealing with tough political opponents. What Taiwan needs are peaceful politicians that can encourage people to rise above their own political and economic desires. This is the only way to deal with strong powers and rally the hearts and minds of the public. Can the DPP stand up to such a challenge?

Shih Chih-yu is a professor in the department of political science at National Taiwan University.

Riding on PRC’s failing fortunes


Friday, Feb 13, 2009, Page 8

‘If the government insists on pursuing a policy of ever-closer cross-strait ties at a time when the Chinese economy is flashing warning signals and social unrest is brewing, then Taiwan is headed for trouble.’

THE “NO. 1 DOCUMENT” (一號文件) published by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on Feb. 1 describes how the spreading global financial crisis and economic slowdown is making its impact felt in the Chinese countryside. The document said that this year could be the toughest for the Chinese economy since the beginning of the new century — and even more so for agriculture. It shed light on the crises that are affecting China’s economic development and society as the financial tsunami sweeps across the globe. Under the circumstances, China’s leaders must be feeling wary and anxious.

As the financial storm rages, economies around the world have gone into a downward spiral of cutbacks in production, soaring unemployment and cautious consumer spending. China is known as the workshop of the world, and its economy depends heavily on exports, so it can hardly avoid the ill effects of the crisis.

Beijing has tried various measures to fix its troubled economy, such as subsidizing sales of home electrical appliances in the countryside in an effort to boost domestic consumption and clear stocks originally made for export. Unemployment is rising steeply in every country, and the situation in China must be worse than elsewhere.

The Labor Contract Law that came into effect at the beginning of last year has already prompted a number of manufacturers to move abroad. Now, as a new wave of factory closures and stoppages hits the country, the employment situation in China can only get worse.

In China, migrant workers from the countryside are the mainstay of the industrial work force, accounting for an overall majority of workers in the country’s cities and industrial zones. The total number of migrant workers is estimated to exceed 130 million. Hit hard by the global financial crisis, countless companies in China have gone bankrupt or halted production.

With no money coming in, laid-off or unpaid migrant workers have no choice but to go back to their home villages. Chinese officials estimate that about 20 million, or 15.3 percent of all rural migrant workers, have already done so. Given that non-agricultural earnings by now make up more than half of total rural income, it is hard to see how the countryside can absorb the tide of returning migrant workers.

The signs are that a social time bomb is ticking away and could blow up any time. That explains why the CCP’s No. 1 Document pays such close attention to rural problems.

In fact, China’s leaders have more to worry about than just the countryside. They must also consider the more than 6 million fresh graduates joining the labor market later this year. After enjoying double-digit economic growth for many years, China is now faced with the difficult challenge of maintaining growth of above 8 percent. Failing to do that, the repercussions will not be confined to the countryside. Factory closures, production stoppages, layoffs and unpaid wages — all knock-on effects of falling exports — have already sparked protests in many cities. It is only because the Chinese government has suppressed reports of such events — watering them down or blocking them entirely — that the outside world gets to hear so little about them.

It is fair to say that the global financial crisis has hit China where it hurts. Busy licking its own wounds, China has little scope for attending to the injuries of others. As a Chinese leader recently said, China has its own problems to deal with and can’t be expected to save the world. The message is clear: Taiwan’s economy cannot rely on China. Regrettably, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who has made easing rules on investment in China a key policy, has yet to comprehend this.

Talking on Feb. 3 to Taiwanese businesspeople with investments in China, Ma said “improving cross-strait relations is an important element in improving Taiwan’s overall economic environment and structure” and “the government’s policies over the past eight months have been correct, and we shall continue to promote them.”

Ma’s determination to follow his own course with no regard to reality is beyond comprehension.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) has said that China will have some difficulty in keeping growth above 8 percent this year. Anyone with their finger on the pulse will detect in Wen’s words a warning that China’s economic situation is worsening. What Taipei should be doing at this time is to redouble efforts to reverse the fall in exports and encourage investment at home.

If the government insists on pursuing a policy of ever-closer cross-strait ties at a time when the Chinese economy is flashing warning signals and social unrest is brewing, then Taiwan is headed for trouble. As China’s economic situation worsens, Taiwanese firms operating there will not be the only ones that will suffer. Our fear is that, when the virus of China’s economic malady infects Taiwan, our immune system will be so low that Taiwan will succumb to the disease and collapse.

Ma’s China strategy endangers Taiwan
　

By Lai I-chung 賴怡忠
Friday, Feb 13, 2009, Page 8

RECENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLES reported comments by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at a military promotion ceremony that while East Asian countries and the US are increasingly worried about the intensifying problems on the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan’s allies are very impressed that cross-strait relations have remained stable. Based on this, Ma said that his policies have minimized China’s threat toward Taiwan, while at the same time meeting the interests of the US and other countries friendly to Taiwan.

The problem is that Ma’s policies are in fact strategically marginalizing Taiwan rather than minimizing the threat posed by China. The most evident case in point is the North Korean nuclear issue, to which Ma frequently refers.

In 2002, under former South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun, Seoul sought unilateral diplomatic reconciliation with North Korea and considered the US to be a source of instability on the Korean Peninsula. Roh’s flexible diplomacy, which kept an equal distance from both the US and China, almost caused the US-South Korea alliance to disintegrate. South Korea did not cooperate with the US on the North Korean nuclear issue and continued to extend a helping hand to North Korea despite Pyongyang’s repeated violations of disarmament agreements, leading North Korea to feel secure in the knowledge that it had strong backing.

However, the ineffective pressure from the six-party disarmament talks led the US to accept the request that it hold one-on-one talks with North Korea to discuss the nuclear issue. As a result, North Korea managed to bypass the South and negotiate with the US. South Korea was thus marginalized on negotiations over North Korean nuclear disarmament — the issue most important to its national security.

An examination of Ma’s policy of appeasement toward China following his accession to power leads one to ask the question: In what way does it differ from Roh’s policy toward North Korea?

Recently, Robert Sutter, who used to work at the US National Intelligence Council, said in a seminar that Ma’s policies have confirmed Beijing’s dominance over cross-strait relations. US Congressional Research Service analyst Shirley Kan (簡淑嫻) also suspects that Ma’s policies toward China could mean a fundamental change in US-Taiwan relations.

If Taipei no longer sees China as a threat, US strategic priorities for Taiwan are certain to change and the US might also give up on its policy of selling weapons to Taiwan aimed at maintaining cross-strait stability. In other words, Ma’s eight months in power have undermined the 60-year-old US-Taiwan strategic foundation — a problem similar to what happened to the US-South Korean alliance under Roh’s presidency.

As Taiwan increasingly leans toward China, the US will confer with Beijing to uphold its best interests in the Taiwan Strait. The reason for this is that Taiwan has abandoned its bargaining chips and this means that Washington no longer has any need to negotiate with Taipei. This is exactly Sutter’s point.

The current situation facing Taiwan is not that the threat from China has been minimized, but that Taiwan has been strategically marginalized. Despite this, Ma was pleased that no reference to Taiwan was made in the recent dialogue between the US and China. The Ma administration’s strategic ignorance has pushed national security to the brink of danger.

Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.