Has Taiwan Learned Anything from the Crisis in Ukraine?

Has Taiwan Learned Anything from the Crisis in Ukraine?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 16, 2014

Summary: Although they are different in size, Taiwan and Ukraine have undergone similar experiences. Populist politics, national identity, social divisions, and power struggles have led to lost economic development. Confronted with the Ukraine crisis, we need to engage in self-examination. We need to think about how to forsake populist politics, how to establish a consensus on economic development, and how to revitalize the Republic of China politically, economically, and socially. We need to think about how to make it an attractive, dynamic, and constructive force for cross-Strait peaceful development. This will do more than benefit Taiwan. It will benefit our entire nation.

Full Text Below:

On the 11th of this month, two states in eastern Ukraine held referenda on independence. Polling stations were few. Donetsk City voters were forced to wait in long lines. The US and the EU denounced the referenda as illegal. ( AFP )

Two states in eastern Ukraine, Donetsk and Lugansk, held referenda on May 11. They decided whether to create a autonomous Donetsk/Luhansk People's Republic. or self-styled People's Republic of Donetsk. Election Commission officials said that 89.07% of the voters supported the establishment of autonomous state, while 10.19% were opposed. Luhansk Oblast separatist forces said 96% of the voters support autonomy.

The goals of the referenda were somewhat vague. What exactly constitutes "autonomy?" Is it a declaration of independence from Ukraine and the establishment of an independent nation? Is it a declaration of autonomy within Ukraine, moving Ukraine toward some sort of federalism? The separatist forces who organized the referendum failed to make any of this clear. On the 12th of this month, right on the heels of the referenda, pro-independence forces in two states in Houdon cited the results of these referenda and proclaimed their independence from Ukraine. They refused to participate in the Ukrainian presidential elections scheduled for May 25, and asked the Russian government to allow them to join the Russian Federation. Ukrainian independence has morphed into Russian reunification.

For many the referenda were farces. There was no voter registration, no verification of identities, no ballot security measures, no impartial, neutral vote counting system. There were not even enough votes for a quorum, Naturally Europe and the US refused to recognize the referenda. Even Russian authorities are maintaining a cautious attitude concerning the referenda and their outcomes

If Houdon's referendum was a farce, then isn't the entire Ukrainian crisis merely a larger-scale, more serious farce?

In 1991, Ukraine won independence from the Soviet Union. This was one of the results of the grand strategy of the United States and other Western countries to bring down the Soviet Union. Since then, the Western countries have fought to split Ukraine off from Russia and make it part of Europe. This fight has never ended. If anything, it has become more flagrant. In May 2004, the three Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and other former communist countries joined the European Union. The borders of "Political Europe" now reached Ukraine. By the end of the year, the Orange Revolution had erupted in Ukraine. Western pressure, support, and subtle influence made Ukraine's orange revolution the most powerful of all the color revolution opposition groups. Its most significant impact on the world was the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovich, the pro-Russian Prime Minister of Ukraine.

But the orange revolution did not bring Ukraine hope. Inflation worsened and people's living standards fell. In 2010, Yanukovych was democratically elected President of Ukraine. After some waffling, Yanukovych terminated the long negotiated agreement with the EU. He canceled plans to join the EU free trade zone. He strengthened economic and trade relations with Russia. Yanukovych's actions triggered demonstrations by pro-EU forces. The so-called "revolution in Ukraine" eventually led to his downfall, and brought Ukraine even more turmoil and division.

It is fair to say that years of economic stagnation and poverty, coupled with corruption, tyranny, and oligarchic control, led to profound discontent with the Yanukovych regime. The movement initially focused on matters of the people's livelihood and democracy. Unfortunately Ukraine was in the grip of extreme right ultranationalists. These populists hated ethnic Russians and Russia.

Ukraine was once the richest republic in the Soviet Union. It was known as the Breadbasket of Europe. Among the Soviet republics, it had the highest proportion of engineers, the most technologically advanced manufacturing and engineering, and world-class welding technology. Its industrial and agricultural output accounted for one fifth of the Soviet Union's wealth. It was the base for the Soviet Union's military industry. Ukraine is located between the EU and Russia. Its geopolitical situation is complex and sensitive. All parties have intervened aggressively. Ukraine could have used this as leverage. With its unique combination of rich resources, of scientific, technical, and geopolitical advantages, it could have become self-reliant. Alas, these opportunies were repeatedly lost.

Today's Ukraine economy ranks at the bottom of the former Soviet states. After 20 years of independence, economic development has yet to be restored to the level it was in 1990. Real GDP in 2012 was 69.5% of what it was in 1990. Real GDP per capita was 81.1% of what it was in 1990. The nation is in chaos. People are suffering. Some scholars have identified the key. "Ukraine faces domestic problems. Twenty years of independence have not provided answers to problems such as economic development." Its ruling cliques however, have recast domestic issues as national identity issues. They want Russia to follow Europe. The result is that the nation has been divided and the people are suffering.

Houdon's future is in question. The major powers continue their struggle, fully exposing the hypocrisy of the West, Kosovo is permitted to hold a referendum. But Crimea and eastern Ukraine are not. In the past the major powers emphasized human rights over sovereignty. Now they insist the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is indivisible. What constitutes true happiness and dignity for the Ukrainian people? The major powers have no answers and do not care.

Although they are different in size, Taiwan and Ukraine have undergone similar experiences. Populist politics, national identity, social divisions, and power struggles have led to lost economic development. Confronted with the Ukraine crisis, we need to engage in self-examination. We need to think about how to forsake populist politics, how to establish a consensus on economic development, and how to revitalize the Republic of China politically, economically, and socially. We need to think about how to make it an attractive, dynamic, and constructive force for cross-Strait peaceful development. This will do more than benefit Taiwan. It will benefit our entire nation.

社論－台灣從烏克蘭危機學到什麼
2014年05月16日 04:10 中國時報 編輯部

烏克蘭東部2州11日舉行「獨立公投」，由於投票所有限，頓涅茨克市選民大排長龍。美國和歐盟均稱本次公投違法。（法新社）
烏克蘭東部2州11日舉行「獨立公投」，由於投票所有限，頓涅茨克市選民大排長龍。美國和歐盟均稱本次公投違法。（法新社）

烏克蘭東部兩州頓涅茨克（Donetsk）與盧甘斯克（Luhansk）在5月11日舉行了「公民投票」，決定是否要建立「自治」的「頓涅茨克／盧甘斯克人民共和國」。自封的「頓涅茨克人民共和國（Donetsk People’s Republic）」選舉委員會官員表示，89.07%選票支持建立自治國家，10.19%反對。盧甘斯克州分離主義勢力則宣稱有96%選民支持「自治」。

這場「公民投票」的目標相當曖昧模糊。所謂的「自治」究竟是指什麼呢？是從烏克蘭「獨立建國」？是在烏克蘭內部「自治」，讓烏克蘭走向聯邦制？主辦公投的分離主義勢力並沒有能說清楚。緊接著「公民投票」，烏東兩州的「獨派」在12日援引公投結果，宣布從烏克蘭「獨立」，並拒絕參與烏克蘭預定5月25日舉行的總統選舉，進而要求俄羅斯政府同意它加入俄羅斯聯邦。烏克蘭「獨派」成了俄羅斯「統派」。

對許多人來說，這場公民投票只是場鬧劇。沒有選民登記，沒有嚴格的身分核對，沒有選票防偽措施，沒有公正中立的計票與監票體系，甚至沒有足夠的選票，歐美當然不承認這場公投的有效性，連俄羅斯當局都對公投及其結果抱持比較審慎的態度。

如果我們認定烏東的「公民投票」是場鬧劇，其實，整場烏克蘭危機，何嘗不是更大規模、更為嚴重的鬧劇？

1991年烏克蘭脫離蘇聯獨立，這是美國等西方國家瓦解蘇聯大戰略的結果之一，從此，西方國家爭取烏克蘭「脫俄入歐」的工程不但沒有停止反而更為公開。2004年5月，波羅地海三小國和波蘭、捷克、匈牙利等前共產國家加入歐盟，「政治歐洲」的邊界來到了烏克蘭周圍，同年底，烏克蘭就爆發了「橙色革命」。在西方國家的施壓、支援和「潛移默化」下，烏克蘭的「橙色革命」是當時「顏色革命」風潮中，反對派組織力量最強大、也對世界產生較大影響的一環，而「橙色革命」推翻的正是親俄的烏克蘭總理亞努科維奇。

然而，「橙色革命」上台的政權並未帶給烏克蘭希望，通貨膨脹高漲，人民生活水下降，2010年，亞努科維奇經民主選舉當選新一任烏克蘭總統。經過一番擺蕩，亞努科維奇中止簽署已談判多年的歐盟聯繫國協定，取消了加入歐盟自由貿易區計畫，轉向與俄羅斯強化經濟貿易關係。亞努科維奇的作法，引發親歐盟力量群起示威，所謂的「烏克蘭革命」，最終導致他的下台，更帶來烏克蘭的動盪甚至裂解。

持平說來，由於多年來的經濟停滯和貧困的蔓延，加上腐敗、專制，及寡頭勢力的操控，亞努科維奇政權確實民怨甚深，然而，原本改革運動應聚焦在民生和民主議題上，卻在烏克蘭極端民族主義和極右勢力的把持下，走向了狹隘的排俄（裔）和反俄仇俄民粹風潮。

烏克蘭本來是蘇聯最富裕的加盟共和國，素有「歐洲糧倉」美譽，在蘇聯各加盟共和國中，工程師比例最高、製造業和工程技術最發達，焊接工藝世界一流，其工農業總產值占蘇聯的五分之一，更是蘇聯軍事工業基地。烏克蘭處在歐俄之間，地緣政治關係確實複雜敏感，各方勢力積極介入，原本是烏克蘭可以善用的槓桿，只要巧妙結合富饒資源、科學技術和地緣特點，應有機會走上自主自強的道路，但是，機會卻一再的流失。

如今的烏克蘭，經濟在原蘇聯所有加盟國中墊底，獨立20年，經濟發展仍未恢復到1990年水準，2012年，實際GDP相當於1990年的69.5%，人均實際GDP相當於1990年的81.1%，國家混亂，人民痛苦日益加深。有學者直指要害：「烏克蘭面臨的是國內問題。獨立20多年，卻沒有找到國家發展目標和方式這些基本問題的答案」，但它的統治集團卻把國內問題轉換成國家認同問題：要跟著俄羅斯還是選擇歐洲，結果卻是國家裂解、人民困苦。

烏東前途未卜，列強繼續角力，西方的偽善完全暴露，科索沃可以公投，克里米亞和烏東不行，以往強調人權高於主權，現在說烏克蘭主權和領土完整不可分割，至於什麼才是烏克蘭人民真正的幸福與尊嚴，沒有答案，也沒有列強關心。

雖然面積大小不同，台灣和烏克蘭卻有類似的遭遇：民粹政治、國家認同撕裂、大國角力、發展目標失落。面對烏克蘭危機，我們要反觀自身，思考怎樣揚棄民粹政治，如何凝聚國家發展共識，如何讓中華民國在政治、經濟和社會、文化各方面煥發強大生命力，成為兩岸和平發展道路上，最有吸引力，最有活力，也最具建設性力量的磁極，這應該是最有利於台灣，也最有利於全中華民族。