Published on October 1, 2004 By O G San In International
I've just returned from a few days in Shanghai, my second of hopefully many trips to China. On my first visit, to Beijing last year, I was bitten by the China bug. Those of you reading this who've visited the country may know what I mean. It's the condition whereby you see a tiny part of China and you want to see a whole lot more. You leave the country thinking about the next occasion when time and money will allow you to return.

Thers's something about the size of the country which grips you; the immensity of its geography, the length of its history; the richness of its culture, which just makes you want to see more, to hear more, to learn more, to eat more, all the time knowing that you'll never be finished. You'll never look at China and think "right done that, on to Thailand".

But for sucha bewitching country, China has a quite appalling government. Its suppression of free speech and basic human rights and its brutal treatment of minority groups are quite well known in the West. What is less well known is its bullying attitude to Taiwan. I have to admit that I'm not unbiasssed on this issue having spent nearly two years living on the island.

In the ten months between visits, nothing seems to have changed in China's attitude to Taiwan, or as the boys and girls at Xinhua news agency would have you say, "Taiwn province". Unfortunately on this occasion, I didn't get talking to any locals about this issue as I had done in Beijing, happily discussing the merits of Chiang Kai-shek with a postcard seller in Tainanmen Square, with secret poilice all around. I did however have a chance to see how the regime's mouthpieces are depicting cross-strait relations.

It's a case of same old, same old unfortunately. The same bellicose rhetoric, the same tired mantras and the same pig-headed refusal to acknowledge reality.

Beijing's narrative on this issue portrays the island's president, Chen Shui-bian as the crux of the problem. He is, according to Xinhua, a "splittist" (a word I haven't heard since the last time I watched "Life of Brian"), bent on separating Taiwan form "the Motherland" againt the wishes of people on both sides of the strait. The issue of the "Beijing Review" which I bought used exactly the same term to describe the murderers in Beslan, no coincidence in my mind.

But the problem for China is that it has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the conflict. President Chen is not some extremist dragging his country down a path it does not wish to go. He is the democratically elected leader of Taiwan. In this year's election he (just) won a majority of votes. He speaks for Taiwan.

Yes, it's certainly true, as this year's election demonstrated, that public opinion in Taiwan is split. Some people want independence now, some unification now while the great maass of the population floats between these two extremes. But none of this changes the fact that Chen is the legitimate voice of Taiwan. China's problem, as it may discover to its cost one day, is not with Chen Shui-bian, it's with the poeple of Taiwan.

As the regime in Beijing misreads the problem, so it misreads the solution. China sticks fanatically to its "one China" doctrine, the belief that there can be only one Chinese state in this world, and it's the People's Republic. Foreign governments are prompted to repeat their support for this mantra on a regular basis.

Well, you can say "one China" in any langauge you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are two Chinas, and there have been for the past fifty-five years. There are two Chinese leaders, not one; two Chinese flags, not one; two Chinese armies, not one, And de facto, though not yet de jure, there are two Chinese states, not one.

Beiijing's offer of Hong Kong style autonomy to Taiwan, "one country, two sysytems", simply won't work. Such an offer ignores crucial differences between the former Britsh colony and the "rebel povince". Firstly Taiwan, unlike Hiong Kong, is a democracy, not a colony run by an Englishman. The Taiwanese fought long and hard for the right to elect their own leader and they won't relinquish this lightly. Secondly, and more improtantly, Tawian is not, as Hong Kong was, bound by a set handover time. The island is not something to be given over ina treaty, it is a powerful country in its own right. It does not have to rush to a settlement at the behest of others.

In any case, the experience of Hong Kong since 1997 hardly encourages support for the "one country, two systems" model in Taiwan. The area is now run by Tung Chee-hwa, a widely reviled puppet of Beijing. Autonomy in Hong Kong is a charade.

If the Politburo really do want unity then they will have to come up with something a lot better than "one country, two systems". More like "one nation, two states". But if this week's visit is anything to go by, such new thinking is a long way off. China is keeping up the rhetoric, convening conferences where it warns of the dire implications for regional peace if Chen goes too far.

But the more China beats its chest, the more it alienates the people of Taiwan. Rather than wailing aboiut the "splittists" in power in Taipei,China should instead reflect on why support for their "one China" doctrine is slowly ebbing away on the island. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

It may be a long time before I can read a newspaper in China without getting angry.


Comments
on Oct 01, 2004
I don't think you will get your next Visa proved after these statements.

But very good Article.

The China is a Communist Country and that Communism is built on an idea of constant revolution. Taiwan is the symbol of that revolution. That threat that binds the people to the ideology and to scares little children at night with. But as you said, that threat is wearing thin after awhile. The Politburo will need to find a new threat soon to keep the fire alive. The question is where and who?

That's My Two Cents
on Oct 01, 2004
I stand 100% behind Taiwan wanting it's own decisions, if the people vote to join China that is fine, but China does not and should not take Taiwan by force, I just hope the US will not give up on Taiwan, not to mention Taiwan makes alot Electronic stuff that the US uses. Microchips, motherboards, etc. This should be Taiwan's decision all the way, and for the most part I consider people from Taiwan, Taiwanese not Chinese. They have established them self very well and are a big part in the world economy, China just wants to get their hands on it, or should I say the Politburo wants to get their hands on it because they need more boosts to their economy.

Do you know China will not let Taiwan join the United Nations? What is up with that? Somehow China is going to give us grief in our effort to deal with North Korea, and Taiwan will be an issue they bring up if we want their help. I don't think we should abandon Taiwan no matter what China says, since Taiwan is not China, and China is not Taiwan.

Only if, and I mean only if, Taiwan votes to rejoin China (I am talking 2/3 Majority since the decision is a major one) should it be accepted by the U.S.

- GX
on Oct 01, 2004
the idea of taiwan has always been a rather controversial one in the world and in china
Speaking as a former Chinese citizen (i acquired canadien citizenship 2 years ago) I do no believe that the idea of one china is simply communist propaganda. There is a strong desire on both sides to somehow unify the two province or nations (w/e u wanna call it) The taiwanese still consider themselves part of china. If you meet a taiwanese person, it is more than likely they will refer to themselves as chinese. We as chinese people do not look upon the Taiwanese with any sort of condensention. What you americans have to understand about china is that what is broadcasted in the papers and media are not nearly an accurate reflection of what the public or government believes.

" I don't think we should abandon Taiwan no matter what China says, since Taiwan is not China, and China is not Taiwan.
Only if, and I mean only if, Taiwan votes to rejoin China (I am talking 2/3 Majority since the decision is a major one) should it be accepted by the U.S."

First of all, China IS taiwan and taiwan IS china, the fact that one lives under the communists and the other the capitalists does not make any difference. Secondly, while the U.S should defend taiwan in case of chinese aggresivness if the taiwnese government requests it, the US government has NO PART and NO BUISNESS in the internal affairs of other countries. Whether or not the US accepts annexation of tawain or not is of no consequence. That decision is up to the people and government of China and Taiwan. Americans seem to believe that they can control the affairs of other nations as it chooses. You hold a simplistic ideology spoon fed to you by ur elementry teachers which basically boils down to Democracy=Good, Everything else=bad. It is ironic that you people seem to accuse all other countries of censorship and propaganda when you urselves hold incredibly simplistic views taught by government determined curriculums and textbooks.
on Oct 01, 2004
Hell if totalitarianism was a proven system that worked and let people live freely and decide their own life than hell I wouldn't mind it.

Problems reside when people lose the choice to decide their own life.

Personally I don't wholeheartedly agree with Democracy but that is not my choice it is the choice of the majority. From the gist of what you are saying China should decide Taiwan's fate, or should it be Taiwan? Well since Taiwan IS China and vice versa, no wonder they don't want Taiwan to enter the U.N. Personally I think you have also been spoon fed 'All Under Heaven' too much and think everything should be united and nothing divided, the will of the bigger mass or force decides. Hell we all been spoon fed crap, but the key point is try not to regurgitate in the defense of imperialism. Communism does not equal Socialism, and vice versa.

It is ironic that you people seem to accuse all other countries of censorship and propaganda when you urselves hold incredibly simplistic views taught by government determined curriculums and textbooks.


Last time I checked that how the world is, everywhere is the same, government always controls what is taught.

Taiwan is a Democracy if they decide, than it fine with me, as long as they decide and it is not at the end of the perverbial 'smoking gun'.

China and Taiwan
Russia and Chechnya
England and Northern Ireland
The Balkans
Israel and Palestine

Hmmm I am beginning to think that maybe uniting 'All under heaven' might solve some problems, but to do that you would have to eliminate everybody's choice, am I wrong?

Oh well screw it do whatever you freaking want and suffer from the consequences period.

Machiavelli basically said 'ends justify the means', but a better one should be 'gains and benefits outweigh the harms and losses'.

- GX
on Oct 02, 2004
I personally don't think Communist China should have the permanent seat on the UN Security Council. If Communist China says that Taiwan is China, then the rightful Government to the China that was originally given the seat is in Taiwan, not Beijing.

If you want to use that logic to say Taiwan is China then give up the seat buddy.

That's My Two Cents
on Oct 02, 2004
the US government has NO PART and NO BUISNESS in the internal affairs of other countries.


Well if you want ot play it that way: China has no right to be in Tibet.

- GX
on Oct 02, 2004
Thanks for your comments everyone.

Machiavelli,

I never said that the Taiwanese weren't Chinese. In an ethnic, linguistic and cultural sense, all Taiwanese (except the aboriginals) are Chinese. The point is, does this mean that they have to be part of a Chinese state run from Beijing? I would say no, it doesn't. I would also say that the Taiwanese themselves should be free to decide their fate - and I mean free from Chinese threats and bullying.

I haven't been spoon fed anything, I lived there for two years. I didn't sense any "strong desire" to unify when I was there. If anything, things are running in the other direction, the pan-green (pro-independence) parties are getting stronger. Why? Because the younger generation are less attached to the idea of one China.

Also, I'm not an American.
on Oct 02, 2004
With regards to the U.N securtiy council seat, i believe the fact that the seat is given to Beijing is simply one of practicality, mainland china is much more powerful militaristically and economically. I have no objections with granting taiwan another seat within the UN security council. With regards to the analogy made by GX, i do not believe that it is accurate because the situations you have listed below all involve powerful nations which have conquered another ethinic group or culture. which is very different then their own. Espically wit h the case of Britain and Ireland, being one is protestant and the other catholic. The taiwanese people, like OG San said, are the same ethnic liguistic and cultural people as china, the only difference is the governmental body which runs it. The people of taiwan also have no strong desire to seperate completely from China as in the other cases
on Oct 02, 2004
With regards to the U.N securtiy council seat, i believe the fact that the seat is given to Beijing is simply one of practicality, mainland china is much more powerful militaristically and economically.


That should not matter. Then your saying, If Spain invaded France and the Government of France only held Lyon. Then Spain should get France's Seat because it is beat the snot out of another country then became more powerful militaristically and economically?

The seats went to the legitimate Governments of those countries that won World War II. That legitimate Government is in Taiwan.

Might does not make right. In your theories if a country reaches an economic or military level they should be given permanent seat on the military council. Thats BS.

I personnely think the only members on the Security Council should be countries that have let their people Vote their governement in no matter what economic system they use. That is fair elections, not some farse of only having one person on the ballet.

That's My Two Cents
on Oct 02, 2004
China and Tibet
Russia and Chechnya
England and Northern Ireland
The Balkans
Israel and Palestine


FIXED. Now as for China and it's UN Seat it should be given up until they give up Tibet. Can't the monks and Tibetans have their land back? Or is that wrong? At least let us make th stipulation that China will not be able to have it's seat in the UN until they give up Tibet and since China is not sitting their than the Chinese people of Taiwan can represent mainland China's interests until the mainland complies.

- GX
on Oct 03, 2004
How many people realise that, far from being on the Security Council, Taiwan is not even a member of the United Nations? Every year some of its 30 odd diplomatic allies put forward the island for membership and every year it gets voted down because of Chinese pressure. So a Chinese dictatorship is a permanent member of the Security Council but a Chinese democracy isn't even allowed in.

on Oct 03, 2004
I spent a few weeks wandering around China over the summer and was very surprised at the huge variation in opinion from northern China to Southern China. People in the south really don;t like communism at all and wish the country would unify with Taiqan under the Taiwanese system of governmnet. The best comment I heard was from a shop owner in Hong Kong wondering why England didn't hand Hong Kong to Taiwan instead of China. I think people there would be much happier!

Paul.
on Oct 05, 2004
Now as for China and it's UN Seat it should be given up until they give up Tibet. Can't the monks and Tibetans have their land back? Or is that wrong? At least let us make th stipulation that China will not be able to have it's seat in the UN until they give up Tibet and since China is not sitting their than the Chinese people of Taiwan can represent mainland China's interests until the mainland complies.

AMEN!, My family and i have been working on that here in tibet....