Responses to External Forces, Past and Present, by Japan and China

Responses to External Forces, Past and Present, by Japan and China
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 24, 2010

The proposed signing of the cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) has provoked arguments over whether the government should have an Open Door Policy or a Closed Door Policy, and over internationalization and marginalization.

The nineteenth century Meiji Restoration in Japan and the Qing dynasty Reform Movement of 1898 on the Chinese mainland have often been compared to each other. In fact, the slogans "zun wang rang yi" 尊王攘夷 (honor the emperor by resisting foreigners) and "fu qing mie yang" 扶清滅洋 (help the Qing court, exterminate the foreigners), show the difficulties both experienced resisting aggression by "foreign barbarians." Both were struggles for national salvation, but each of them led to a very different result.

In 1853 America's "black ships" knocked on Japan's door. They provoked a debate over whether Japan should adopt an Open Door Policy or a Closed Door Policy. The political slogan "zun wang rang yi" spoke of resisting the invaders. The debate was fierce, and even led to a small scale civil war. In the end however, the advocates of an Open Door Policy prevailed. Their advocacy of an Open Door Policy over a Closed Door Policy was motivated by a desire to "resist foreigners." Japan witnessed the bloody results of the Sino-British Opium War. They realized that only an Open Door Policy could save their nation.

The Meiji Restoration produced two main results. First, the Meiji Restoration's "da zheng feng huan" 大政奉還 ended the rule of the Tokugawa shogunate. A constitutional monarchy helped the new government consolidate its rule. Secondly, a strategy of rapid opening up and comprehensive reform led to regime change, economic prosperity, a strengthening of the military, the transplantation of new industries, and civilizational advances. Fukuzawa Yukichi's "detachment from Asia and entry into Europe" sums up the thinking of the Meiji Restoration. It denoted total transformation. Finally, Japan's victory in the 1895 Sino-Japanese War essentially validated the Meiji Restoration.

By contrast, consider the Qing court's Self-Strengthening and Reform Movement which occurred at roughly the same time. After 30 years or so, the Self Strengthening Movement begun in 1860 ended in defeat with the Sino-Japanese War. In 1898 the Reform Movement petered out after only one hundred days. All of the Qing court's reform efforts were coopted by the Boxer Rebellion and spun as "Support the Qing, exterminate the foreigners." This led to the humiliation suffered in 1900 at the hands of the Eight Nation Alliance, and the disastrous Boxer Protocol and Boxer Indemnity. Eleven years later, Sun Yat-sen's revolution overthrew the Qing Dynasty. The two slogans "zun wang rang yi" and "fu qing mie yang" were so similar. So why did they lead to such dramatically different outcomes?

Nor was China's tragedy over. Mainland China closed its doors with an Iron Curtain. Only after Mao Zedong's death in 1976, did it introduce its policy of Reform and Liberalization. Only later, in 1992, when Deng Xiaoping gave his "Southern Tour Speech" did the mainland authorities reach a Point of No Return. The Meiji Restoration completed its reform and liberalization in just a few decades. Mainland China's Reform and Liberalization was delayed 110 to 130 years.

But once it passed the 1992 Point of No Return, the Beijing government's courage and wisdom in its Reform and Liberalization efforts have been impressive indeed. The issue of whether to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) provoked a fierce controversy within the mainland government and among the public. Zhu Rongji, its chief sponsor, was denounced as a traitor. His critics compared the acceptance of WTO provisions to Yuan Shi-kai's acceptance of Japan's 21 Demands. Opening up involves pain. One must open up the nation's doors, reduce tariffs, allow "vulnerable industries" to be impacted. But only opening up can create opportunities, and transform the economy from a stagnant pond into a living stream. Lastly, the Beijing authorities are using WTO, and external influence, to compel internal political reform and liberalization, as well as economic transformation and upgrading. As a result, mainland China has become the number one beneficiary of the WTO system, and Zhu Rongji can shrug off the label of "traitor."

Now it is Taipei's turn to choose between an Open Door Policy and a Closed Door Policy. The debate is essentially over whether to resist Beijing and globalization by opening up, or to resist Beijing and globalization by closing down. The Meiji Restoration policy of "zun wang rang yi" helped the new government consolidate its rule. It created social cohesion, enabling it to withstand external shocks. On Taiwan however, the opposition DPP wants use "resisting foreign aggression" merely as a pretext for internecine political struggle. It wants to use "love for Taiwan" merely as a populist rallying cry, and merely to incite hatred for [mainland] China. In fact it is little different from the Boxer Rebellion's "support the Qing court, exterminate the foreigners." At least the Boxer Rebellion's "zun wang rang yi" (honoring the emperor by resisting foreigners) supported the Qing court. Slogans such as "love Taiwan, hate China" on the other hand, are intended merely to force Ma Ying-jeou to step down over the "early harvest list." The "zun wang rang yi" policy of honoring the emperor by resisting foreigners and the "fu qing mie yang" policy of helping the Qing court eliminate foreign influences, advocated national unity in response to foreign aggression. Opposition DPP accusations that the Ma administration "panders to [mainland] China and is selling out Taiwan" on the other hand, deliberately distort the facts. They are clearly merely about political infighting. Pitting "vulnerable industries" against "conglomerates" meanwhile, merely replicates the internal power struggles that occurred during the Cultural Revolution, inciting the proletariat to exterminate the capitalists.

In the controversy between an Open Door Policy and a Closed Door Policy, the opposition DPP has failed to match Japan's wisdom during the Meiji Restoration, or mainland China's courage during Reform and Liberalization. Advocates of a Closed Door Policy on Taiwan have the same mindset as the Boxers. They have merely substituted "love Taiwan, hate China" for "honor the emperor, exterminate foreigners." They are merely using "vulnerable industries" as a bargaining chip during internal power struggles. They are merely parroting the "support the proletariat, exterminate the capitalists" slogans popular during the Cultural Revolution.

Zhu Rongji has finally gotten his day in court. He is finally able to shrug off the label of "traitor." How long do advocates of a Closed Door Policy on Taiwan intend to demagogue the issue of "pandering to [mainland] China and selling out Taiwan?"

尊王攘夷 扶清滅洋 傾中賣台
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.24 02:36 am

兩岸經濟協議（ＥＣＦＡ）的議簽，引發了開放與鎖國之辯，及國際化與邊緣化之爭。

十九世紀日本的明治維新，與中國清朝的自強變法運動，常被引為對照。其實，從「尊王攘夷」與「扶清滅洋」兩句口號，即可看出兩國當時皆面臨如何抵拒「洋夷」侵略的問題，但同為救亡圖存的變革，最後在兩國卻有大相逕庭的結果。

一八五三年，美國「黑船來航」，向日本敲門，引發「開國／鎖國」的論戰。「尊王攘夷」這個政治號召，原本寓有抵拒入侵者的意旨；那場論戰不可謂不激烈，甚至發生局部內戰，但最後「開國派」取得勝利。亦即主張以「開國」來「攘夷」，而不是用「鎖國」來「攘夷」。因為，隔海中英鴉片戰爭血淋淋的事例擺在日本眼前；變法開國是唯一的自救之道。

明治維新的主要成效有二：一、以「大政奉還」倒幕置縣，再以「君主立憲」鞏固政府；二、在迅速開放及全面改革的戰略原則下，將政體改造、富國強兵、殖產興業、文明開化等畢其功於一役。福澤諭吉的「脫亞入歐」，可謂總括了明治維新的思維，其實就是「脫胎換骨」的意思。最後，一八九五年，日本贏得中日甲午戰爭，形同明治維新開國政策的驗收成績單。

反觀約略同一時期的清朝自強變法運動。一八六○年以降三十餘年的自強運動，以甲午戰敗收場；一八九八年的戊戌變法，僅百日即夭折。至此，清廷變法維新的一切努力，竟被義和團「扶清滅洋」的口號所襲奪；最後引致一九○○年八國聯軍、辛丑條約及庚子賠款的慘禍。十一年後，清朝因孫中山革命而覆亡。「尊王攘夷」、「扶清滅洋」這兩句孿生子一般相似的口號，為何卻有如此殊同天壤的結局？

悲劇在中國並未結束。中國大陸以「鐵幕」鎖國，至一九七六年毛澤東死後，始能端出「改革開放」的政策，且更遲至一九九二年鄧小平「南巡講話」才通過了不折返點。明治維新可謂在數年之間即確立「改革開放」，中國大陸的「改革開放」則整整遲了一百一十年至一百三十年。

然而，過了一九九二年的不折返點後，北京政府「改革開放」的勇氣與智慧皆予人深刻印象。是否加入世界貿易組織（ＷＴＯ），一度成為中國朝野激烈的爭議。主其事的朱鎔基，被斥為「漢奸」、「賣國賊」；又指接受ＷＴＯ條款，不啻等同袁世凱接受日本的「二十一條」。開放有其痛苦，必須打開國門，降低關稅，使「弱勢產業」遭到衝擊；但開放才能創造機會，使經濟成為活水。最後，「藉由ＷＴＯ的外力，強迫改革開放及經濟轉型升級」成為決策主軸，如今中國已成ＷＴＯ體制下最大的受益國，朱鎔基也脫掉了「賣國賊」的帽子。

現在，輪到台灣面對「開放／鎖國」的抉擇。這是「以開放來因應中國及全球化（攘夷？）」，或「以鎖國來因應中國及全球化」的爭議。明治維新「尊王攘夷」，以鞏固政府、凝聚社會，來面對外力衝擊；但台灣卻儼然只是「藉攘夷的口實來操作內鬥」；以「愛台灣」的民粹號召，煽動「愛台仇中」，其實亦與義和團的「扶清滅洋」不啻異曲同工。何況，義和團的「扶清滅洋」尚主張支持清政府，但「愛台仇中」卻是欲以「馬英九下台」為「早收清單」的唯一項目。再者，無論「尊王攘夷」或「扶清滅洋」，皆是舉國一致因應外侮；但是，將馬政府指為「傾中賣台」，卻刻意扭曲國家處境，明明只是政治內鬥。至於以「弱勢產業」與「財團」相對立，亦儼然是文化大革命中「興無滅資」內鬥口號的翻版。

面對「開放／鎖國」的爭議，台灣的表現不如明治維新的智慧，亦不如中國改革開放的魄力；台灣的鎖國派，不啻是以「愛台仇中」取代了「扶清滅洋」的義和團思想，甚且是以「弱勢產業」為內鬥籌碼，翻唱文革「興無滅資」的口號。

朱鎔基終於討回公道，熬到了摘掉「賣國賊」帽子的一天。台灣的鎖國派，還要將那頂「傾中賣台」的帽子操弄到何年何月？