Any DPP Cross-Strait Policy that Positions Taiwan Outside of China is in Vain
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
May 27, 2013
The KMT-CCP Civil War led to a divided nation. Taiwan was under the
control of others for long periods of time. The Mainland's national
defense was threatened. Today, cross-Strait peace has finally
established a basis for exchanges. But the DPP seems determined to
depart from the straight and narrow, and go its own way, As long as the
DPP classifies Taiwan as not part of China, as long as it persists in
painting Mainland China as the enemy, then any of its "China Policy"
declarations trumpeting "universal values" will be in vain.
Full Text below:
DPP has lost two general elections in a row. It is acutely aware that
cross-Strait relations is its Achilles Heel. Therefore it is eager to
remedy its plight. It is eager to pave the way for another presidential
bid in 2016. Younger generation DPP leaders have recently exerted
pressure on the DPP party leadership. Recently, during the party's All
Peoples Conference, they called for a "Resolution on Human Rights in the
Taiwan Straits." They demanded that cross-Strait relations be based on a
"foundation of universal human rights." On the one hand, they called
for "supporting the Chinese people in their adoption of democracy." On
the other hand, they insisted that any agreement between the two sides
"must be consistent with the principles of democracy, equality, and
dignity." They said they hoped that "the Chinese people could establish a
government based on democracy and universal suffrage, that the two
sides could develop a relationship of trust and friendship rooted in
human rights and democracy." Obviously, they were using "universal
values" as stalking horse for a "relationship of trust and friendship."
Needless to say, this was the same old "China, Taiwan, one country on
each side" wine in a not so new bottle.
addressed this topic when he first announced the China Affairs Committee
Plan on June 20. He convened nine "Hua Shan Conferences on China
Policy." He then said the All Peoples Conference was short on time, and
used it as an excuse to pass the "Resolution on Taiwan Straits Human
Rights" on to the Central Executive Committee. The resolution was
apparently shelved. But rumor has it the DPP's long-awaited "Great China
Policy Debate" will soon convene.
Let us review the
DPP's so-called "China Policy," beginning with the founding of the
party. In 1991, the DPP passed its "Taiwan Independence Party Platform."
In 1999, the DPP passed its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." In 2007,
the DPP passed its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." Now the DPP has
passed its "Resolution on Human Rights in the Taiwan Straits." Every
last one of them was predicated upon Taiwan independence. The DPP
constantly replaces the bottles. But inside it always serves up the same
old Taiwan independence wine. The DPP seems to think that it need only
concoct a glib rationale to camouflage the underlying premise of
"Taiwan, China, one country on each side." The party will then magically
surmount the difficulties it has encountered in cross-Strait relations.
As we have solemnly underscored, such self-deception will have no
effect whatsoever. If the DPP is truly seeking a way out of its dilemma,
it must make a fresh start. It must revisit the historical roots of
cross-Strait relations, and rethink its position.
DPP loves to point out how the two sides have long been separately
ruled. It loves to cite this "historical fact." But it is unwilling to
face another historical fact. Mainland Chinese governments have long
valued a very different historical fact. Beginning with the Emperor
Kangxi, Mainland governments have considered Taiwan of vital importance.
For starters, the island is important for the defense of Mainland
China. Three hundred years ago, the Qing court annihilated the Koxinga
regime. It originally intended to relocate the population to the
Mainland, and leave the island unoccupied. But in the 22nd year of
Kangxi's reign, Shi Lang wrote "The Pros and Cons of Abandoning Taiwan."
He pointed out that "Taiwan's location was strategic. Jiangsu was to
the north. Guangdong was to the south. It protected the flanks of four
provinces, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong. Abandoning it will
lead to disaster. Retaining it will permanently protect our flank." As a
result Kangxi included Taiwan in China's territory based on national
defense considerations. Ten years later, Yu Yonghe traveled to Taiwan.
Recalling earlier arguments for abandoning Taiwan. he said "Those who
advocate abandoning Taiwan do not realize that if we abandon it, others
will surely seize it. I was able to travel here. I know it would not be
difficult to implement immigration. The example of Koxinga is fresh in
our memory. Why demolish our own fences? Why provide Japanese pirates
with a nest? This is something a wise person would not do!" Henceforth
Qing dynasty defense policy always gave national defense the highest
priority. It ceded Taiwan only under duress, after being militarily
defeated in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894.
independence advocates love to talk about how since 1895, Taiwan and
Mainland China have been under the same government for only four years.
Therefore, they argue, for the two sides to be governed separately is
"normal." But from the Mainland perspective, during the past century,
those four years were the only years in which Taiwan was not a threat to
the Mainland's national defense. Japan once referred to Taiwan as an
"unsinkable aircraft carrier." Prior to Japan's defeat, it built over 60
military airbases on Taiwan. It took full advantage of Taiwan's
geographical location as a base for aggression against the Chinese
mainland and Southeast Asia. During the Cold War, the KMT drew the U.S.
into the Chinese Civil War. It became a willing pawn of the United
States' effort to contain the Chinese mainland. It constantly harassed,
invaded, investigated both the Mainland coastal and inland regions.
These "historical facts" tell anyone who cares about the future of China
what Kangxi knew, long ago. Abandoning Taiwan "will lead to disaster.
Retaining it will permanently protect our flank."
independence advocates' perception of history lumps Chinese governments
such as the Koxinga regime, the Qing Dynasty, and the Republic of
China, in the same category as Dutch, Spanish, and Japanese
colonialists, as "foreign regimes." This is the result of their own
identity confusion. As the late sociologist Chen Shao-hsing noted, "The
rapid increase in Chinese population on Taiwan began during the late
Kangxi era." Its "basis for growth began during the Ming dynasty Koxinga
era." "In particular, the larger population required political
organization. This political organization, and its sovereignty, played a
decisive role in increasing the size of the population. The Dutch may
have welcomed the Han Chinese coming to Taiwan to live. But their
purpose was mercantilist. As soon as the Han Chinese population
increased sufficiently to threaten their interests, they resorted to
suppression, and even mass slaughter. Under such conditions, the Han
Chinese population would have remained quite small. Koxinga expelled the
Dutch. He successfully restored sovereignty to the Chinese people. From
a demographic perspective, this Is an important fact." Similarly,
without Kangxi to continue Koxinga's restoration of Taiwan to China, the
Han Chinese population on the island of Taiwan would never have become
so large. Most Taiwan independence advocates are Han Chinese. Their
ancestors were able to come to Taiwan, to multiply and prosper, only
because they were the beneficiaries of Koxinga and the Qing dynasty. Yet
today they look down their noses at these Chinese governments as
"outsiders." From any perspective, emotional or rational, their attitude
is simply untenable.
The KMT-CCP Civil War led to a
divided nation. Taiwan was under the control of others for long periods
of time. The Mainland's national defense was threatened. Today,
cross-Strait peace has finally established a basis for exchanges. But
the DPP seems determined to depart from the straight and narrow, and go
its own way, As long as the DPP classifies Taiwan as not part of China,
as long as it persists in painting Mainland China as the enemy, then any
of its "China Policy" declarations trumpeting "universal values" will
be in vain.
社論－民進黨何去何從 系列2 自外於中國 任何兩岸政策都徒然