|
On March 20, the people of Taiwan will vote as
their next president either incumbent President Chen
Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party or Lien
Chan of the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang
(KMT). They will also vote on a critical referendum
that asks whether Taiwan should obtain advanced anti-missile
weapons if China refuses to withdraw missiles
targeted at the island. The outcome of the election will
set the future direction of the China-Taiwan reunification
debate, since Chen represents a pro-independence
faction, while Lien supports reunification.
So how is all this relevant to us at Harvard? Here, the arguments on this issue have been terribly one-sided. Only the ostensibly “cultural” Taiwanese Cultural Society has sponsored political events on this topic, but these have shown only the pro-independence side of the debate. For example, last semester it hosted a speaker who praised the role of Japan in developing Taiwan while simultaneously degrading the role of China and the KMT. Another upcoming event is its “2-28” talk about a tragic event in Taiwan’s history in which thousands of Taiwanese and mainland Chinese died. Separatists have distorted this incident by claiming Taiwanese were the only victims. It is possible that many in the Harvard community have thus been misled by arguments for Taiwan’s independence, and hopes that this misinformation can be corrected. Presently, “China” is divided into two states: The People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC). The PRC controls the mainland and Hong Kong. The ROC controls Taiwan. The nature of Taiwan has evolved greatly in the past century. China first lost Taiwan to Japan in 1895 in the first Sino-Japanese War. During the occupation, Japan tried to “japanize” Taiwan, and the effect of the brainwashing is still felt by older Taiwan Chinese today. During this period, the mainland was undergoing political turmoil. In 1912, Chinese nationalists organized themselves into the Kuomintang party. The KMT aimed to modernize and unify China, and it allied itself with America in WWII. When WWII ended, and the KMT lost control of the mainland to the Communists, Chiang Kai-shek led the Nationalists to a newly reclaimed Taiwan. Under KMT leadership and with American foreign aid, ROC Taiwan prospered economically. Nevertheless, it would lose international recognition as the legitimate government of China to the PRC. Still, through the Cold War, Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT never lost its dream of recovering the mainland and reuniting China. Even today, the official capital of the ROC remains Nanking, in mainland China, and only “provisionally” Taipei, in Taiwan. As the Cold War came to a close and the KMT ended martial law (imposed because of fears of Communism and actual incidents of subversion), some Taiwan Chinese began agitating for a purely Taiwanese identity. They attacked anything and everything Chinese, from Taiwan’s ROC identity, to the history lessons on China taught in junior schools, to even denying their Chinese ethnicity. Unfortunately, the KMT enlisted many of them in the party, unaware of their true intentions. One of the most ridiculous of these was former KMT Chairman and President Lee Teng-hui. As ROC President, Lee termed himself “Japanese” and told Japan it was no longer responsible for war crimes it committed in China and Taiwan. It’s difficult to overestimate how such sentiments horrified Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait who remembered the Japanese invasion of China. The KMT establishment soon ousted Lee and began to unite with the Communists against Taiwan separatists. Another consideration is that China’s missiles are a non-issue. Russia today has thousands of nuclear warheads targeted at America. Yet we hold no referendums in response, probably due to a realistic understanding of the situation coupled with the futility of such an action. China simply will not withdraw its missiles. They are part of its military leverage against Taiwan’s independence, an independence that they refuse to consider. Removing the weapons would not only be a loss of face, but would give the appearance that Taiwan’s independence is a possibility. Chen has blatantly timed the referendum so its supporters, who tend to be anti-Chinese, and therefore pro-Chen, have one more reason to come to the polls. Moreover, Lien’s election and the return of the KMT are in our own national interest. American trade with China and Taiwan depends on their peaceful coexistence, and it is not clear that our military could deal with a crisis if one arises. That’s why current U.S. policy indeed supports “One China”. Yet only Lien and KMT support this rational goal, while Chen leads a party that imprudently advocates Taiwanese independence. If Chen wins, many believe he will openly declare independence, leading to threatened military action by the Communist Chinese. Beyond economic and strategic interests, the U.S. can aid the development of democracy in Taiwan and China. Taiwan’s democracy could be ensured if Taiwan reunites with the Chinese mainland under the formula of “one country, two systems” (1c2s). Under 1c2s, Taiwan would continue to enjoy autonomy over domestic affairs and some international representation. Taiwan would also keep its own military, and Taiwan’s leader would hold the second highest position in the national government. Under such a plan, democracy in Taiwan would be safe, and indeed, Taiwan could even promote the development of democracy in the mainland. It was that same hope for peace that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao brought last January to America and Harvard. During Wen Jiabao’s White House stop, President Bush did warn Taiwan against changing the status quo. But before March 20, it is imperative the Bush administration act again by standing publicly and firmly behind America’s oldest Asian ally, the Chinese Kuomintang, and actively commit U.S. foreign policy to the “One-China” principle. It owes the KMT no less. |