The Cross Strait Times

Dear President Ma,

Yesterday was the 62nd anniversary of the terrible tragedy of 28 February 1947. While I appreciate your efforts in making amends to all people who were affected by the terrible events of that day, I think the KMT can do better in its sincerity about its responsibility for what happened.

While you are promising to get to the bottom of who was responsible for 228, what progress have you made in the other February 28th tragedy? Remember when you were running for president, you promised that you would find the culprits behind the Lin Family murders? Please don’t forget to keep your promise to do so. Those responsible for this terrible crime and tragedy must be brought to justice.

Mr. President, you have said that we need to learn from the past to have a better future, but we must investigate it thoroughly in order to do so. I sincerely hope that uncovering the truth about what happened can resolve the social divide that splits and polarizes Taiwan.

Sincerely,
James

Happy Lunar New Year everyone!

Here’s light-hearted cultural exchange idea:

One of the assumptions of Taiwanese cuisine is the Taiwan has best Chinese food and the highest-concentration of it anywhere in the world. In recent years, however, bloggers and reviewers have complained that the current generation of Chinese food just isn’t as good.

“Chinese cuisine has traveled to Taiwan for years. And just like the rivers that eventually flow into the sea, it’s all the same in the end.” - Eat Drink Man Woman

In light of these complaints, perhaps the government could create a grant system where chefs could apply to go to the place of their ethnic cuisine’s origin on the Mainland to get back in touch with the roots and reasons for why their food is prepared the way it is. Of course, the people who get these grants have to prove their intention of opening restaurants so they’re not just scamming the government into a free food-tasting trip.

Being that Taiwan’s political status is so volatile on the island and off and how the polarization of national identities has obscured real socioeconomic issues, can’t we just have easy referenda to solidify that we agree to disagree? Here are two such low-hanging fruit that can be easily picked.

Issue: The Republic of China is the current legal government of Taiwan.
[Yes] [No]

Why is this even being asked? Because even though the Cairo Declaration stated that the Allies intended to hand Taiwan to the Republic of China at the end of World War II, the Chinese Civil War prevented the ROC from being present at the Treaty of San Francisco where Japan renounced all rights to Taiwan. As a result, some Taiwanese activists say this lapse in the ROC’s acceptance nullifies the ROC government’s jurisdiction over Taiwan.

As it is, not many people dispute that the ROC is the government of Taiwan, as the ROC has been co-opted by the mostly native-Taiwanese Democratic Progressives and Taiwan Solidarity Union. These parties have elected officials and sent them to participate in the ROC government; the DPP has even had a member become ROC president! These facts alone should testify to the ROC’s legitimacy to Taiwan, but to make it official, why not have the referendum? We know how the results will turn out, and it will solidify the ROC’s legitimacy.

Issue: Taiwan shall maintain the status quo for the next 20 years, status quo being defined as not changing the legal name of the country to move towards either unification or independence. At the end of 20 years, the issue will be reopened for debate.
[Yes] [No]

This is a slightly different take of Sun Bin’s Pinning Taiwan. While Sun Bin’s referendum plan is a vote on unification vs. independence that is deliberately set up to lapse into status quo, this setup is pretty straightforward. Agree to keep the status quo or keep debating in polarizing nationalistic circles as we do now. Considering the high support for maintaining the status quo, this again, should be another easy pass. According to the linked poll, “keep status quo indefinitely” and “keep status quo, decide later” together are already at 63.5%. Throw in “status quo now, unification later,” the figure goes up to 74.0%, and “status quo, independence later” bumps up the figure again to 91.1%

Granted, if such a vote were to take place, the vote totals for “yes” may not be a whopping 91%, but it could easily pass 50% or even 75%.

Solidifying the status quo would also be another means of getting Beijing to remove the missiles currently pointed at Taiwan. If Taiwan has no intention to declare independence for 20 years, then the missiles have no need to be there. Don’t be fooled by the warmongers who say that Beijing will launch a preemptive strike for unification. Beijing is not stupid; without Taiwan declaring independence, the Communists will not sacrifice their revenue-generating coastal cities whose wealth keeps the Communists in power. Stop the flow of money into China (because all the ports are destroyed and foreign companies see both sides of the strait as too unstable to outsource to) and the Communists lose their legitimacy. A Pyrrhic victory for the CCP would be no victory at all.

The added bonus of the 20-year status quo freeze period co-existing with cross-strait disarmament is that it provides a stable framework (at least, more stable than currently) for both sides of the strait to repair official relations, facilitate greater cultural exchanges, and bring about better mutual understanding.

The Pan-Blue camp needs to stop being afraid of referenda and use them for their political ends, as the Pan-Green camp has done. Beijing and Washington would have no reason to be concerned because 1) Beijing has learned that interfering only backfires and 2) they’d know what the results would be anyway — a solidification of the status quo. We already know what the referenda results will be, so isn’t that all the more reason to do it?

Thankfully, the Wild Strawberries demonstration on Monday went off without a hitch. No violent clashes, nothing thrown, no arrests. The fact that everything stayed peaceful and went as planned shows that:

A) protesters can stay nonviolent
B) government is learning about acceptable ways to handle protesters

It’s sad to hear that some of the supporters still think that “the students’ action would not be as effective as throwing gasoline bombs, like we did in the old days.” [1] Clearly, this does not reflect on the Wild Strawberries movement, but also shows that civil society still has a long way to go. Furthermore, it is interesting and refreshing to hear that the protest stayed nonpartisan. An elderly couple complained about not being able to display their pro-independence banners at the rally, but I must say this. It doesn’t matter whether you are pro-independence, pro-unification, or pro-status quo — freedom of speech is important for everyone. This universal right is in everybody’s best interests.

Besides, it’s not like the past DPP administration is blameless on limiting free speech. Remember when they banned DPP members from appearing on TVBS and then threatened to shut down the news station after the station broke a story on DPP corruption? [2]

[1] Taipei Times: Wild Strawberries protest proves skeptics wrong
[2] Taipei Times: GIO readies the blowtorch for TVBS

Background reading:  Dalai Lama not welcome to visit: Ma (Taipei Times)

Comment:  This is unfortunate.  Isn’t the ROC supposed to be the ‘what could be,’ the alternative China?  But then we also need to have better economic relations with the Mainland.  How can we strike a balance between upholding our civil liberties and our economic needs?  Wouldn’t it be fantastic if the Dalai Lama and Tibetan supporters could come to Taiwan and see that, if the Mainland adopts Taiwan’s political practices, that everyone can live together peacefully?

At least, if His Holiness does come to Taiwan, at least Beijing could turn it into a propaganda angle and say, “Hey, look, the Dalai Lama finally came back to the motherland!”

Article begins below:

Ma in a corner over the Dalai Lama
By J. Michael Cole 寇謐將
Thursday, Dec 04, 2008, Page 8

The announcement by Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama on Friday that he hopes to visit Taiwan — where he has a large base of supporters — sometime next year will present an immense challenge to the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration, which in recent months has endeavored to improve ties with Beijing.

Despite the Dalai Lama’s assertion that, given the improved relations in the Taiwan Strait, “maybe this is a good time” to visit Taiwan, the symbolism of the presence in Taiwan of such a paramount icon of autonomy would be such that Beijing would bring tremendous pressure to bear on Taipei not to permit it.

Beijing’s response would certainly be much harsher than the retaliations it has meted out on other countries when their leaders met the spiritual leader, which usually consisted of canceled talks on human rights or demarches by Foreign Ministry officials.

If Taipei showed signs it was about to approve a visit by the Dalai Lama — and approval would be required — Beijing would likely resort to blackmail and warn that cross-strait talks could be jeopardized, if not mothballed altogether. It could also resort to various forms of economic warfare, which would highlight the misguided, if not suicidal, strategy of the Ma administration to further couple the nation’s economy with that of China.

In light of this, the expected reaction by Taipei would be to deny entry to the Dalai Lama, on the grounds that a visit at this time would be detrimental to ongoing diplomatic efforts, perhaps even to national security. In fact, addressing the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents Club at the Sherwood Hotel in Taipei yesterday, Ma said that while Taiwan “generally welcomes” religious leaders, the timing for a visit by the Dalai Lama was “inappropriate.”

Sadly for Ma, however, the problem does not end here, as he is caught between a rock and a hard place. He finds himself in a situation where regardless of his decision on the visit, he is bound to generate great discontent: While allowing a visit would send a strong signal of leadership and political independence, it would undeniably “anger” Beijing. Conversely, denying a visit would infuriate the Dalai Lama’s representatives as well as his many supporters and admirers in Taiwan, including the entire pro-independence camp, for whom the Dalai Lama also serves as a symbol.

Denying the Dalai Lama a visa could be as divisive as the visit early last month of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), except that this time around, rather than protesting the visit of a reviled Chinese envoy, Ma’s detractors would vent anger at the state’s denial of a visit by one of their own, a symbol of liberty and human rights, and put pressure on the government to overturn its decision.

In either instance, Ma and his government would be seen to be siding with China against the wishes of Taiwanese.

By quickly launching its peace initiative with Beijing while failing to take into account the fact that there are lines Chinese leaders will never allow to be crossed — Taiwanese and Tibetan independence being two of the more salient examples — the Ma administration put itself in a straightjacket and severely limited its options diplomatically, so much so that the visit of one man, however potent a symbol for Tibetan autonomy he may be, holds the promise of either scuttling cross-strait talks or generating civil strife.

It didn’t have to be this way. A more cautious, gradual approach to “peace” with China would have provided Taipei with more room to maneuver. After all, the Dalai Lama visited Taiwan in 1997 and 2001 and met former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) without incident. The crucial difference between then and now is that the Ma administration has allowed itself to become hostage to cross-strait “goodwill” by making good relations with Beijing a cornerstone of its campaign promises.

Fully aware of this, Beijing knows that by the mere threat of withholding that goodwill, it can dictate Taipei’s decisions. Hence the contrast between Ma’s remark in March that he would welcome the Dalai Lama and what he said yesterday.

Ironically, the administration has also put itself at the mercy of the Dalai Lama and his many supporters, who now have the power to create serious trouble for Ma by simply making an official — and well publicized — request for a visit.

Ma has often talked about creating “win-win” situations. Inauspicuously for him, he’s about to get a taste of the “lose-lose” by having to choose his poison.