|
‘One China’ against
the Philippines
By Lee Hsiao-feng 李筱峰
In 1871, 142 years ago, 54 sailors from the Ryukyu Kingdom were shipwrecked on
the southern tip of Taiwan and beheaded by Aborigines. Japan took the matter up
with the Qing court in China, on the pretext of wanting to protect the civilians
of the Ryukyu Kingdom. The Manchu government in Beijing had little experience
with international affairs and agreed to allow the Japanese to launch a punitive
expedition to Taiwan to “discipline the unsubjugated foreigners” in retaliation
for the killings.
This led to the Japanese invasion of Taiwan that we now refer to as the Mudan
Incident of 1874. The matter was eventually settled by the governments of Japan
and China: The Japanese forces left Taiwan, but the Japanese made the Manchu
Qing concede that, in their invasion of Taiwan, they had acted in the interests
of the subjects of Ryukyu. This would later become the basis for Japan’s claim
to the Ryukyu Islands and their incorporation into Japan’s territory as Okinawa
Prefecture, following the fall of the Ryukyu Kingdom.
Siaoliouciou (小琉球), or “Lesser Ryukyu,” is controlled by Taiwan, administered as
Liouciou Township (琉球) in Pingtung County. The fishing boat fired upon by a
Philippine coast guard vessel on May 9, killing one of the fishermen on board,
is registered in Siaoliouciou. This is an incident involving Taiwan and the
Philippines, but China has also seized it as an opportunity to protest to the
Philippine government, ostensibly in the interest of “protecting its civilians.”
Of course, Beijing’s intervention is predicated on its “one China” stance,
wherein it holds that Taiwan is a part of China. Otherwise, it would not have
had the audacity to get involved. Should China take this further and choose to
deal with the troublesome Philippine “foreigners” in the “interests of the
civilians” of Taiwan, who is to say that Taiwan — to all intents and purposes an
independent country — would not go the way of the Ryukyu Kingdom?
It is only natural that the shooting by an official Philippine vessel of a
Taiwanese national — the sort of behavior one would expect of pirates — has
caused much anger in Taiwan. Still, the government’s dissatisfaction with the
way the Philippine government has framed its apology left me wondering whether I
should laugh or cry. Do President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his buddies not hold
that there is only “one China” and that Taiwan is a part of China? So when the
Philippines offer an apology in line with its observation of the “one China”
formula, does this not also comply with Ma’s “one China” principle?
Perhaps Ma would like to qualify his umbrage with “when we say ‘one China,’ we
mean the Republic of China [ROC].” Ha! Dream on, Ma. Tell me: Does the
Philippines have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan under the utterly
meaningless name the “ROC”? Its formal diplomatic relations are with the “one
China” of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), represented by the government in
Beijing. Based on Manila’s interpretation of “one China,” it is only reasonable
that the job of apologizing to the Taiwanese falls to the personal
representative of the president. Ma should be privately ecstatic that the
Philippines made no official inter-governmental, state-to-state apology to the
PRC, which it recognizes as the “one China.” Neither Ma, nor his entourage — all
of whom advocate “one China” — nor the just less than 7 million people who voted
for Ma in last year’s presidential election and therefore implicitly support
“one China,” have a leg to stand on in complaining about how the Philippines
apologized.
Ma’s fabricated “one China” will only make it more likely that the real,
internationally recognized “one China” will annex Taiwan. Taiwan was able to
impose 11 sanctions on the Philippines because of its de facto status as an
independent nation; it had nothing to do with the idea of “one China.”
I recently heard of a rather worrying, reactionary idea, that if our own
government lacks the wherewithal to protect our fishermen, then we may as well
unify with “the mainland” and let Beijing take care of things. This is the kind
of ignorant and scary idea that the psychologist and social theorist Erich Fromm
wrote about in his book Escape from Freedom. People, unable to bear their own
helplessness, would rather cede their liberty and rights to an overarching
power. This is the kind of mentality that enables despots and dictators to rule.
Are these people unaware of the relentless suppression and violence visited upon
Tibetans and the secessionist Uighur group the East Turkestan Liberation
Organization, under the dictatorial regime in China? Within this context, the
barbaric action of the Philippine vessel pales in comparison. And did they not
see how the authorities in Beijing recently issued an order prohibiting
university professors from teaching the universal values of freedom and
democracy? Only those with a slave mentality would want to live in a country
like that.
The other day China made noises to the effect that the combined forces of the
People’s Liberation Army and the Taiwanese military would be sufficient to shock
and awe the Philippines. I dare say that if China and Taiwan establish formal
diplomatic relations and combine their armed forces they would not only
overwhelm the Philippines, they could even take on the US. Is that possible? I
wonder if China would like to find out.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a professor at National Taipei University’s Graduate School
of Taiwanese Culture.
Translated by Paul Cooper
|
