Place Taiwan in the Right Hands: Its Own (Full Version; see link for published version)

If you say something often enough and loud enough, does it become true?

The National People’s Congress of China ratified the Anti-Secession Law on March 14. All 2896 members of that legislative body voted unanimously for the law, which states that Taiwan is a part of China, and that any motion towards “secession” would be grounds for the employment of “non-peaceful means.”

The ten articles of the “law,” its writers, and those who ratified it are entertaining a blissful delusion. A law is only functional—only legitimate—if it addresses its real constituency. By claiming loudly in international circles that the cross-strait situation is a domestic squabble, China would like to make a wish into a reality. It tries to do so by sheer force: it blocks Taiwan from the U.N. and U.N. related bodies such as the W.H.O.; it bullies the world into calling Taiwanese athletes representatives of “Chinese Taipei,” and it will not tolerate anything other than its version of the story.

The Anti-Secession Law is only the latest reiteration of that tired old tale, a tale that does not conform with the political reality in Taiwan.

The Anti-Secession Law says: “The state protects the rights and interests of the Taiwan compatriots in accordance with law.” There can be no law if the target population of such law has not agreed to a social contract with that law. Only 5% of the Taiwan population is in favor of the Anti-Secession Law, according to a recent poll by a Taiwanese news agency (TVBS News). The other 95% have expressed no wish to be “protected” by the law of China, especially if this consists of “protection” from basic democratic liberties.

The Anti-Secession Law says: “Safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.” There has been no such integrity and no such common obligation for two, almost three generations. The two entities that administer law upon the territory of Taiwan and the territory of China respectively have not had direct communication in 57 years. Furthermore, Taiwan has completed two free elections of a sovereign president, a leader who does not report to the “central” government in Beijing.

The Anti-Secession Law says: “In the event that…possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China’s sovereignty and territorial dignity.” In fact, peaceful means have never been used. China and Taiwan today are as friendly as the United States and Russia during the Cold War. China has continued to point over 700 missiles at Taiwan, and shows no signs of decreasing their numbers. Taiwan continues to buy military equipment from the U.S.

The Anti-Secession Law got a standing ovation at the National People’s Congress of China ratified the Anti-Secession Law on March 14 because it was the culmination of this fantasy, this narrative that the government of China has been force-feeding its people and foisting upon the international community for decades. The assembly stood up and applauded, patting itself on the back: this must be the final stroke of genius. If we make into law, everyone must recognize it. Even the “Taiwan compatriots.”

The CCP has repeated ad nauseum, at home and abroad, that the “Taiwan Question” is a domestic issue. In fact, the Cross-Strait situation has been teetering on the edge between domestic and international status since 1949, when the government that calls itself the “Republic of China” fled to the island, and the Communist government that calls itself the “People’s Republic of China” took over power in Beijing. At the beginning, both the Kuomintang (the Nationalist Party) and the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) claimed sovereignty over the entire territory of Taiwan and China, and would agree that the conflict was a civil war.

But in 2005, this is no longer the case. Taiwanese nationalism has grown steadily since the election of the first non-Kuomintang president. The Nationalist party that once claimed sovereignty over the whole of China is now the main opposition to the Democratic Progress Party (DPP), led by current Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian. The DPP has constructed its platform on this new nationalism. The old ambition to reconquer the mainland is little more than a joke for most Taiwanese citizens.

China has also repeated ad nauseum that a small band of radical “secessionists” have hijacked the Taiwanese mainstream in order to further their own political gain. Perhaps on the Mainland it would be possible for politicians to impose their agenda upon an entire population, and quash all dissent.

In Taiwan, however, the free press bashes the DPP as often as it bashes the Kuomintang. The majority of the Taiwanese population does not necessarily want immediate independence; nor does it necessarily prefer reunification. The current Chinese political climate is unthinkable for most Taiwanese, because even though they disagree politically amongst themselves, they agree that everyone has the right to disagree. Even ardent Kuomintang supporters, who generally lean a little more towards reunification, were a part of the 95% that did not endorse the Anti-Secession Law.

Perhaps the CCP is unable to simply understand the meaning of political plurality.

By trying to impose the single master narrative of reunification on all Taiwanese citizens of varying political persuasions, the Anti-Secession law denies the Taiwanese people the right to decide their own destiny.

One question for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP): if you put a missile in place on the mainland side of the Taiwan Strait for every word in your fantasy story, will it become reality? If you yell and threaten to start World War III, will you get a “yes” from the Taiwan public that is truly a “yes” and not a festering “no”?

Sure, the story of “reunification” may become reality for the general public of China, especially for citizens who have never crossed PROC borders, and never have full access to free, uncensored Internet. It may even be enough to convince the EU members to lift the arms embargo, provided that the exchange pads their pockets with renminbi. But as long as China does not admit that other narratives exist, that multiplicity challenges this hegemonic “integrity,” the Taiwan Question will never be solved.

Taiwanese politicians will continue to agitate, to shout out words of dissent to the world with the real support of their real constituency. Just ask the million Taiwanese citizens who took to the streets in Taipei on March 26. For them, this is a struggle for survival. This is a struggle for the recognition that reality is manifold, that power does not equal justice, that saying something loudly means you are deafening—not that you are right.