Monday, August 18, 2008

AEI Scholars on Taiwan/China, TIME on Ma

Dan Blumenthal and Chris Griffin of American Enterprise Institute reflect on Taiwan through the lens of Georgia in the Weekly Standard:

For years China has been selling the argument that Taiwan is a provocateur. Beijing argued throughout the administration of independence-leaning Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian that "separatists" in Taipei had hijacked Chinese "compatriots" on the island who really want unification with the Chinese motherland. Remove the separatists, China's rhetoric went, and Taiwan will return to the motherland--allow them to govern, and China will one day have to attack.

The election of the more accommodationist President Ma Ying-jeou has somewhat stalled China's belligerence, but Taiwan is a democracy and the "separatists" will be voted back in one day. The Taiwanese public, moreover, is itself becoming
more separatist--only a tiny and diminishing minority wants to unify with China. This fact may explain why, even after Ma's election, China has not halted its military build-up across the Strait: Over 1,000 ballistic missiles, 300 advanced fighters, dozens of submarines and destroyers are poised to wreak havoc on the small, isolated island. As China grows stronger it is no longer fanciful to imagine it pulling a Putin, trumping up any number of Taiwanese "provocations" as a pretext to attack.

The underlying tensions in the Taiwan Strait bear important similarities to those in the Caucasus. Just as authoritarian Russia objects to a democratic, pro-American Georgia, so too authoritarian China sees a democratic, pro-American Taiwan as a gaping wound on its periphery. The main cause of tensions is domestic politics. An authoritarian China, like authoritarian Russia, needs fervent nationalism to retain its shaky legitimacy. The "sacred goal" of reunifying the motherland serves that purpose well.
Their reading of the way that Beijing shapes the perception of Taiwan is excellent, as is their forthright acknowledgement of China's belligerence on the Taiwan question. Is Georgia a good analogy for Taiwan? At present, South Ossetia complicates the analogy beyond repair, I think.

++++++++++

TIME meanwhile marches on with an article on Ma Ying-jeou's trip to Paraguay that highlights yet another region where China is rapidly gaining influence, and at the same time reveals some of the problems Ma is facing...

But the Latin America jaunt could still prove politically fraught for Ma, whose domestic popularity has been slumping in parallel with Taiwan's economy. Paraguay is one of the few remaining countries that maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan rather than with China. Incoming populist President Fernando Lugo has said he favors reversing that policy in order to take advantage of skyrocketing Chinese investment in Latin America — roughly a quarter of China's total overseas investment, according to one estimate. His government has asked Taiwan for a $71 million aid package — seen by some analysts as enticement not to change its diplomatic allegiance.

Ma has promised to stop the "checkbook diplomacy" that previous leaders have practiced for decades. Indeed, Taiwan's long-standing practice of wooing small, often poor, international allies with economic aid has occasionally proven embarrassing. In May, a scandal erupted when middlemen commissioned by Taipei to help seduce Papua New Guinea away from Beijing were accused of absconding with $30 million of government funds. Even if, as analysts expect, Taiwan doesn't offer Paraguay the full $71 million, by going, Ma risks being seen as continuing the practice of bribing impoverished nations in Latin America and Africa for their support. "Ma should not expose himself to this kind of open blackmail," says Loh I-Cheng, Taiwan's former ambassador to South Africa.

Paraguay had been hinting about switching recognition to China, which apparently is a major destination for that nation's soybean crop. The article cites Andrew Yang, who is always picked up for these pieces, and is pro-Ma. But it is a fairly good report, free of the fawning over Ma that is so often a staple of the international media (He went to Harvard! He speaks English!) and containing good information on the stances of the various political actors. Still has the "split in 1949" nonsense, though.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cyprus would provide a better analogy of a beleaguered island sovereignty. For it is the island/mainland analogy that hold true to Taiwan's predicament. China holds that the vast majority of the population are of Chinese origin and therefore stakes its claim.

Anonymous said...

This is beautifully put:

"For years China has been selling the argument that Taiwan is a provocateur. Beijing argued throughout the administration of independence-leaning Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian that "separatists" in Taipei had hijacked Chinese "compatriots" on the island who really want unification with the Chinese motherland."

Anonymous said...

If you want to make genetic arguments, a genetic study last year by Mackay Hospital showed 80% of bensheng people are of partial Aboriginal heritage. There are so many dumb reasons that the "Chinese origin" argument doesn't make sense anyway. Can China claim San Francisco Chinatown then? It also creates incentives to do things like ethnic cleansing, i.e. drive out the people you don't like, move in the people you do like, and there, you see, those people are my people, and thus that land is my land.

The Israeli settlers that continuously encroach into Palestinian territory and the Israeli soldiers and state apparatus that follows in is a perfect example of such a strategy.

So the genetic or origin argument doesn't work in the case of Taiwan anyways, but it is a very, very dangerous argument to be using.

skiingkow said...

.
.
.
You know what I'm sick of hearing from my Chinese colleaugues? The Quebec / Canada analogy. This absurd comparison is what I hear from them all of the time.

The thing that usually makes them confused is when I point out that the Taiwanese do not pay taxes to the PRC.
.
.
.

Anonymous said...

I feel it is important to point out that the Weekly Standard will be supporting McCain for President while the Center for American Progress and Time Magazine will be supporting Obama.

channing said...

I personally don't really buy the argument of the genes of the Benshengren. The fact that one's Han-Chinese ancestors married local islanders contributes zero to

1) The current aboriginal population and culture

2) The notion that Taiwanese Benshengren are demographically unique (the whole Han race is a genetic melting pot)

There have been many arguments and attempts to distance the population of Taiwan from that of mainland China, and genetic composition isn't one of the better ones.

Anonymous said...

--China holds that the vast majority of the population are of Chinese origin and therefore stakes its claim.--


psss.. there is not place with genetic "chinese origin".

Anonymous said...

"If you want to make genetic arguments, a genetic study last year by Mackay Hospital showed 80% of bensheng people are of partial Aboriginal heritage. "

Please quit trying to use this line of argument. Ethnonationalism is a dead end. Essentialized identities are a dead end. Primordialism is a dead end. Please look into the phenomenon of nationalism a little closer.

This line of argument is only going to alienate people you need to cooperate with to achieve your national aspirations.

Tommy said...

"You know what I'm sick of hearing from my Chinese colleaugues? The Quebec / Canada analogy."

I think we all have all heard one of those stupid analogies to death. The issue is that, having no real reason why Taiwan should not be independent, Chinese have to come up with some kind of parallel in another country to state their case. But since every independence movement is different, this approach in itself is problematic, unless anyone can truly believe that Hawaii, the Confederate States of America, Quebec, Corsica, Puerto Rico, the Basque Country, Kosovo, S. Ossetia and Chechnya are all just like Taiwan, so all just like each other... a = b and b = c, so a = c. Put all of the examples back to back like this and the absurdity becomes evident.

Carlos said...

I agree it's a poor argument, but it's a natural (knee-jerk) response to the incessant "Well you're Chinese, so obviously you're part of China!" Those arguments came first, and came on so strong that it's hard to remember that demographics aren't an important part of the issue. As if the rest of the world worked that way, anyway. Or Singapore.

But like all the commenters here, I question the Georgia analogy. They seem to have invaded a nation (South Ossetia) that had been de-facto independent ever since the dissolution of the USSR. In that sense, Georgia is analogous to the PRC. On the other hand, it's analogous to Taiwan in that the rest of the world will offer strongly-worded statements but otherwise stand around and watch the fireworks.

(Hi, by the way! I've been lurking for a while and will probably comment more often.)

Anonymous said...

"Ethnonationalism is a dead end" or at least it should be. Unfortunately for quite a few people it is all that matters. So it is useful to have counter-arguments. I think the percentage of Taiwanese having aboriginal ancestry should be irrelevant to the question of whether Taiwanese people should be free to determine their future, but if someone believes as an axiom that ancestry is all-important, then the only way to persuade that person is to show that even by ancestry the Taiwanese should be free. Losing the argument just because the person you're arguing with is irrational or racist doesn't help the cause of freedom.

It also helps to be able to point out that the Chinese can't have it both ways. They shouldn't be able to claim Taiwanese ancient ancestry in China is important while simultaneously claiming that Taiwanese aboriginal ancestry is unimportant. Force them to choose whether ancestry matters or not, if you can. And if ancestry matters, and assuming they believe in evolution, they can look forward to reuniting with the African motherland under their Ethiopian leaders.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the genetic arguement doesnt lead anywhere.

Anyways, I always think of Australia as a good analogy to Taiwan. Clearly the majority of the population is/was "english" in their culture, nevertheless they are an independent nation.

Anonymous said...

Let me qualify my statement.... the discussion of ancestry and genetics and cultural heritage DOES matter in the effect that it demonstrates the great diversity of national populations and the very complexity of social groups and societies and how arbitrary it is to the rise of various nationalisms.

Anonymous said...

If ancestry mattered then Singapore should also be annexed by China.

Anonymous said...

If ancestry mattered then Singapore should also be annexed by China.

lol. nope. chinese must be send home.

Anonymous said...

If ancestry mattered then Singapore should also be annexed by China.

And large sections of San Francisco.