Got momentarily confused between Brookings and Xinhua today as the think tank hosted a piece from a Chinese academic on Taiwan-China relations that offered some bizarre claims. Are their commentaries not fact-checked before being posted? *Sigh*
Therefore, the DPP would continue its basic line on Taiwan independence and opposition to anything related to Mainland China (feng zhong bi fan), including even welcoming pandas from Mainland China to zoos in Taiwan, now and in the future. The DPP and Pan-Green not only irrationally oppose Mainland China and anything related to Mainland China as their strategy, positions, and policies, they also insist on the confrontational, irrational, even violent approaches to carry out their strategies and policies, including physically beating the Mainland officials or former officials going to Taiwan for exchanging views and talks when those officials are on streets, visiting sites, or in buildings in Taiwan.It is one thing to allow academics to state their opinions and provide analysis; it is quite another to permit sheer propaganda. It is shameful that someone was allowed to write this nonsense and have it posted under the Brookings imprimatur. No visiting Chinese officials have ever been "physically beaten" in Taiwan. Opposition to being annexed by the authoritarian PRC, where pro-democracy types are routinely incarcerated, is not "irrational." Letting an academic from a state where dissent is crushed by violence make propaganda accusations that the pan-Greens are "violent" is unconscionable. Wanna see violence? Look up White Terror and martial law in Taiwan history....
On the other hand, perhaps it is good that everyone can see what supposedly serious academics from Beijing actually think.
However, despite the bizarre claims about the DPP, coming from the side that points missiles at Taiwan and promises to murder Taiwanese wholesale in order to annex their land, Chu did argue that the two sides should talk to each other, government to government....
And can one country have two equal-level of “central governments”? Normally, a state should not. But the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are not a normal state, therefore they cannot have completely normal governmental relations. In such a circumstance, they should accept and recognize the other as a “central government” within the “one China.” They should accept and work with the facts that there are two equal level governments within the current framework, and should normally call each other as the normal leaders and officials of a normal government.Chu also called for a framework to normalize relations between the two sides. If you squint, this might seem something like sanity, but in fact it is the usual pro forma invocation of Beijing's claims that Taiwan is part of China. The piece is simply a long argument calling for political talks on the basis that Taiwan and China are "split" and that the Taiwan side should recognize that it is part of China. The framework he proposes is really just a stealth annexation of Taiwan under Beijing's One China rubric.
While Chu tends to blame the pro-Taiwan side for any problems that might arise with this little annexation fantasy, the reality is that nobody in Taiwan wants to be yoked to the PRC and so the next Ma Administration may be no more supportive of open and formal political talks than the current incarnation, whatever the KMT and CCP might be saying to each other in private. However, the DPP and the pan-Greens do make a nice whipping boy for the complete failure of Beijing to convince Taiwanese that being annexed to China would really be a good thing.
Meanwhile, speculation runs rampant. Why would Brookings host such an obviously propabombastic piece as if it were a serious piece of analysis? Is it a signal of some kind?
[Taiwan] 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! Delenda est, baby.