Thursday, August 19, 2010

Jerome Cohen "Neither Green Nor Blue"

Here I am in Kaohsiung, too sick to go out and get thoroughly hammered to properly prepare for tomorrow's bike ride down to Kenting, so I've decided to write a blog post instead. I'll get hammered tomorrow morning; the flatlands of Pingtung just seem to be a place where the biking would be improved by a lack of sobriety....

Jerome Cohen wrote a wonderful response to a Chinese nationalist loon/scholar who attacked Cohen for being "Green" on the subject of Taiwan. The piece, entitled Neither Green nor Blue, should be read in its entirety.

In his lead in to the discussion Cohen wrote:
....I am sure I have disappointed all such expectations, since I try not to allow either friendship or previous political history to influence my focus on issues of the greatest importance to me: open democratic governance, human rights and the rule of law.

I too have been disappointed — by those in Taiwan who analyze issues of law and government in terms of their impact on one side or the other in the island’s overheated partisan politics, rather than on their merits. Paradoxically, in China, where no opposition political party is tolerated, criticism and suggestions for reform, at least superficially, have often focussed on the merits of the topic discussed rather than partisan implications. Of late, however, a rising nationalistic tide has led an increasing number of writers to substitute patriotic rhetoric for responsible analysis.
You can be sure that when someone writes that they are above all that silly partisan politicking and judge ideas "on their merits" that they are refusing to see the massive conflict in their own position, and so it is with Cohen. Zhao Nianyu, the Chinese scholar who attacked Cohen, had much to teach him on this, if only Cohen had listened.

The issue is quite simple. On one hand Cohen supports the CCP/KMT reconciliation and its project of Chinese nationalism, the annexation of Taiwan to China. He supports ECFA and he supports the close economic links between Beijing and Taipei. On the other hand, Cohen supports democracy and rule of law in Taiwan. There is no question on that latter score; Cohen has been a giant speaking out on behalf of rule of law here. But as Zhao points out, these two positions are inherently contradictory: the KMT and CCP can only kiss and make up over the dead body of Taiwan's democracy.

The problem is that democracy and rule of law are not like hand tools whose "merits" are utilitarian. In the Taiwan case, one of the "merits" of democracy and rule of law is that they help keep Beijing at arms length. Both the pro-China and the pro-Taiwan side in this debate realize that. It is obvious on the KMT side in the Ma Administration's struggles to prevent ECFA from having meaningful democratic oversight, and on Beijing's side from its demands, through spokesmen like Zhao and in its talks with the KMT. After a visit to Taiwan Thor Halvorssen and Alex Gladstein published a remarkable piece about what happens in Taiwan when China's human rights are criticized. Their human rights organization had been invited by the KMT to visit Taiwan....
Surprising, then, that we were invited to Taiwan not by the DPP but by the KMT's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to discuss the idea of building a human rights gathering in Taipei. The Taiwan Freedom Forum would be akin to the conference we organize in Norway each year that allows human rights defenders to share experiences and strategize. Our speakers are not known for pulling any punches--Kadeer gave this year's keynote address.

As soon as the MFA realized that our programming was openly critical of the Chinese government, however, their interest disappeared. Over the course of an hour-long lunch in Taipei with the head of the foreign ministry's NGO unit, we often talked human rights but the diplomat did not once raise the issue of China. In any other country this omission would not be too strange--but in Taiwan, where everything is seen through the lens of China, the silence was deafening.

Our MFA handler told us that the KMT "would not continue any discussion of a Freedom Forum," and that if we persisted we would be "troublemakers."

In response, we arranged to meet DPP officials and independent journalists who were more interested in hearing about our work. An hour after we visited the DPP's headquarters, the handler who had escorted us everywhere and taken notes on everything we said suddenly evaporated. Initially having been assigned to us for our entire stay, he had been "reassigned."

In Cohen's case, he suffers the same fate as Halvorssen & Co: when they start talking about democracy, they become "troublemakers." Ironically Zhao is saying the same thing to Cohen that Cohen said to the DPP:
If the DPP acts reasonably and constructively in the review, rather than engage in the obstructionist tactics that the KMT fears, it will gain public support.
"If Dr. Cohen just acts reasonably and constructively...."

Zhao has put his finger on the contradiction in Cohen's thinking -- you can't support democracy and the KMT/CCP ECFA sellout talks at the same time, since the ultimate success of the latter entails the loss of the former. Every partisan in this debate recognizes that reality. Even Cohen himself has stated (Ties that blind) "Improved cross-strait relations appear to have come at a cost to some civil liberties in Taiwan".

As Zhao Hianyu instructs you, Dr. Cohen, just keep following that logic to its proper conclusion.

I'm off to bike. See ya'll in a couple of days!
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

these two positions are inherently contradictory: the KMT and CCP can only kiss and make up over the dead body of Taiwan's democracy.

Not at all because while the KMT and CCP happen to be the party elected to power in case and the only party in the other, the talks are between Taiwan and China, not KMT and CCP.

you can't support democracy and the KMT/CCP ECFA sellout talks at the same time, since the ultimate success of the latter entails the loss of the former.

It's only a sellout if you believe the DPP. Pretty much every other government, economist, think tank etc in the world who's commented on ECFA sees it as a positive.

Islander said...

Great post. Have fun in Kenting!

Taiwan Echo said...

Phew ! Good stuff, at the same time --- heavy ... in terms of the hypocrisy that Ma is leading Taiwan to.

Michael Turton said...

Not at all because while the KMT and CCP happen to be the party elected to power in case and the only party in the other, the talks are between Taiwan and China, not KMT and CCP.

The talks began long prior to the current round, and are carried on by the two parties via non-governmental mechanisms.

It's only a sellout if you believe the DPP. Pretty much every other government, economist, think tank etc in the world who's commented on ECFA sees it as a positive.

That is not only untrue, but, like most of the positive commentary on ECFA, completely ignores Beijing's position on it.

M said...

Michael - Have you not misrepresented Cohen's position? Where does he say that he "supports the annexation of Taiwan to China"?
I am sure he would be opposed to any agreement with China that undermined Taiwan's democracy. Of course, no such agreement has been signed.

Stephen A. said...

The way I see it, the Children of Taiwan have to choose: either they cross over into the Promised Land of democracy and independence or go back to China - back to the house of bondage.

But they'd think they can continue to wander in the wilderness worshipping their idols - CKS and the God of Fortune.

Here's my take on it, with a link to your blog.

http://stephenanelson.blogspot.com/2010/08/rule-of-law-in-taiwan-neither-green-nor.html

Stephen A.

Michael Turton said...

(m), Cohen's position is conflicting and I have not misrepresented it. Cohen supports ECFA and has been a constant cheerleader for it (is that wrong?). ECFA is intended to be the first step in the annexation of Taiwan, Beijing has been very clear about that. Cohen cannot support ECFA since its ultimate goal is authoritarian and colonial, and support democracy, one cancels out the other. That is the message of Zhao. And the DPP. The reason they are both shouting at Cohen is not because he has found some lofty perch in the Moderate Middle but because his position is incoherent and self-defeating.

JerryZ said...

Thanks for the great post, Michael. I hope your hammering primed you well for your ride.

When Cohen went into his protestations and disclaimers, I knew what was coming. Please let me address some comments to Cohen.

Jer baby, when you write, "my focus on issues of the greatest importance to me: open democratic governance, human rights and the rule of law," several questions came to mind. Is China a bastion of or a proponent of democracy? No! A proponent of human rights? No! A practitioner of the rule of law? No! Geez, Jer, it looks like we have 3 NOs here. It seems that China does not give a rat's tuchus about what you consider important.

Jer, you then write, "Any objective reader would have to infer that we favor ECFA and the reconciliation process introduced by Ma." (Who is the imperial or collective we here?)

As Michael wrote about you, Jer, "On one hand Cohen supports the CCP/KMT reconciliation and its project of Chinese nationalism, the annexation of Taiwan to China. He supports ECFA and he supports the close economic links between Beijing and Taipei. On the other hand, Cohen supports democracy and rule of law in Taiwan." (I would add the issue of human rights.)

Jer, this is what I would call a dichotomy. Have you heard of the term? So, Jer, how can you justify and encourage going down a road that is diametrically opposed to that which you treasure and consider of "greatest importance". Without even a mention of a word of caution? I am confused by why you don't acknowledge this dichotomy, but not as confused as you are.

Jer, you are a proclaimed champion of human rights. You write about it. So what do you think about your boy, Ma's MOFA, inviting the Human Rights Foundation to discuss holding a human rights forum in Taiwan. MOFA then discovered that these fellows were critical of China. Oops, end of meeting. KMT just can't tolerate any of those human rights troublemakers running around Taiwan. These fellows, in the HuffPost, were most kind to your boy, Ma, calling him a mercantilist and a practitioner of realpolitik. I know some other words, which are none too kind, but which are more apt. You must be so proud of Ma and his stands on human rights. You schooled him well! (tongue seriously in cheek!)

Jer, how many times do you have to get figuratively whacked on the side of the head with a 2x4 before you wake up?

Enough writing to Jer.

Michael, you wrote, "You can be sure that when someone writes that they are above all that silly partisan politicking and judge ideas "on their merits" that they are refusing to see the massive conflict in their own position". Maybe? It is possible that he sees it clearly, but is desperately trying to obfuscate the obvious. Think, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” Or maybe he needs to publish some "stuff" this year and here was an opportunity? Or his ego is fragile? Or, god forbid, he is getting senile!

I saw your comment out at US-Asia Law NYU. Good comment. I also saw Kunstadter's comment, calling Jer, "The Master". I just love obsequious toadies and sycophants.

Again, Michael. Nice work!

Anonymous said...

Can one ever imagine a DPP President having the guts to declare a Republic of Taiwan and order the troops to go to war with the PRC?

Will this be more realistic than ECFA or just plain blah- blah-blah?

D said...

Uh oh, Michael's been taking those Doomsday pills again....

Anonymous said...

Another fine post. Keep it coming, Turton.

M said...

Michael, any agreement that China reaches with Taiwan will be framed by China as a step towards reunification. Beijing said exactly the same thing about the "three links".
Is it also impossible to support the three links and democracy at the same time?

Stephen A. Nelson said...

"The reason they are both shouting at Cohen is not because he has found some lofty perch in the Moderate Middle but because his position is incoherent and self-defeating."

Is this Ma Ying-joke's Via Media?

It reminds me of the politician who said he had found the Golden Mean between honesty and dishonesty.

When will the Taiwanese wake up a see that there can be no Via Media between tyranny and freedom?

The Golden Path they have chosen is paved with Fool's Gold and is, in fact, Via Dolorosa

Michael Turton said...

Michael, any agreement that China reaches with Taiwan will be framed by China as a step towards reunification. Beijing said exactly the same thing about the "three links".

Are you seriously suggesting that ECFA and the financial agreements have the same effect on Taiwan's economy and society as the three links?

Michael

Michael Turton said...

Mike F: you can post anything here except personal insults and actionable legal stuff. You can spout at length about your bizarre Randite fantasy world. But no comments claiming that I don't give a shit about a certain group of people will ever be posted.

mike said...

Fine, it's your blog and you make the rules - but you're the one with the fantasy trip, not me; here's the same comment appropriately edited:


Your charge, Turton, of incoherence on Cohen’s part is correct, but only in the limited sense that the ECFA necessarily divides the two gangs on the mere procedural principle of how to “legitimately” use violence: one side demands that supplicants be filtered through the workings of democratic institutions, whilst the other eschews this “western poison” in favour of “traditional Chinese culture” bullshit. So your charge against Cohen is true as far as it goes, but how far it goes can only be measured in cold numbers that ignore the lives of real people – as I’m sure the Miaoli County farmers who recently had their land expropriated will testify (so much for their human rights).

Look: it is entirely rightous to claim that the bubbling broth of fascism in China (and here too) must be put out as quickly and effectively as possible – but it must be done for the sake of the proposition that a man’s life is his own and the necessity of individual freedom which follows from that, not for the sake of a slow-stewing democratic cannibalism.

As for Cohen – I couldn’t give a tadpole’s spunk what his past “achievements” may have been; anybody who can, in all seriousness, write this…

"Regarding China, I am neither pro- nor anti-communist but seek improvements in the government that exists."

... is an extremely treacherous old man with no business teaching anyone anything. He should be so lucky selling guavas off the back of a blue truck out in the southern counties somewhere.

Amy said...

"you can't support democracy and the KMT/CCP ECFA sellout talks at the same time, since the ultimate success of the latter entails the loss of the former."

This is entirely true and it angers me that everyone seems to ignore this in Taiwan. Going home for summers has become torture for me. I hate watching the increasingly pro-China propaganda on TV, reading it in the China Post, hearing kids my age say, "oh politics? I don't care. I just want to play video games online and get a job that pays 25,000NT when I graduate."

The DPP is trying so hard to defend the democracy of Taiwan. Our autonomy and independence are at stake today and I think there's a remarkable chance of instigating a movement of Taiwanese pride, which is obviously the last thing the KMT wants. It's just so disappointing. What I hate most about the KMT is their ability to downplay serious cuts into our sovereignty without alerting young people, who should really be the ones defending our nation at a time like this.

It makes me so angry.