Banyan over at the Economist has had two interesting pieces on Taiwan recently. This one, entitled "Taiwan's Commonsense Consensus", has some excellent summaries of the island's situation:Perhaps this is not so surprising. Taiwan has long behaved as a normal country in almost everything except its dealings with its large neighbour. As those become easier, the status quo seems even more desirable. And increased contact highlights points of difference as much as a shared ethnic and cultural heritage. Knowing China better makes Taiwanese even more aware of how lucky they are to be prosperous and free.I didn't like Banyan's analysis when I first read it, as it appears pretty conventional, but I changed my mind:
China hopes economic interdependence will win hearts and minds. This will keep the more congenial KMT in power. And it will bring closer the day when Taiwan’s people fall willingly back, as China sees it, into the warm embrace of the motherland and “reunify”.Kudos to Banyan for putting reunify in quotes. The problem is that the economic carrots have nothing to do with winning hearts and minds -- Beijing is well aware that economic carrots will have zero effect on Taiwanese sentiment. Beijing knows perfectly well what goes on in Taiwan -- they watch TV, read the papers, have people on the ground here, and collect intelligence from businessmen in China. They know that the Taiwanese want to make money off China but at the same time do not want to be annexed to the PRC. Rather, the goal of integration is threefold:
-- to build constituencies in Taiwan that are dependent on PRC monies
-- to keep the KMT in power (as Banyan notes) by directing money flows to areas where the KMT can cultivate its local networks and build new ones
-- to entangle the Chinese and Taiwanese economies together so deeply that Taiwan cannot maintain its independent existence.
Banyan surely knows this; I just wish the foreign press was more concrete about what is actually going on.
Further:
The KMT likes to portray the DPP as dangerous hotheads who might force China to carry out its threat of invasion if Taiwan declares independence. The DPP paints the KMT as a party of Chinese stooges leading Taiwan blindfold towards absorption by the mainland. In fact, the two parties are having a more sophisticated argument: not about independence or unification, but about how best to preserve a status quo most people in Taiwan cherish. The danger is how China might react as it becomes clear that present policies are bringing unification no closer. The hope is that, with so much else to preoccupy it, its leaders will enjoy the smoother relations and not ask where they are leading.It sounds like wisdom but it is actually only conventional. KMT elites don't want to preserve the status quo -- for some Taiwan is a bargaining chip into the great game in the PRC where the real money is; others, such as the President, have a powerful ideological commitment to annexation. The party itself is ideologically committed to annexation, of course, and conventional commentary like this, in my experience, vastly underestimates the extent to which old-line KMTers identify with China emotionally and ideologically, and see Taiwan as an alien place of exile.
The unpopularity of annexation, as Banyan notes, is why the President keeps trying to accomplish it by stealth, chipping away at the island's independence -- maintaining Taiwan is already a part of China, curtailing Taiwan's independent diplomacy, attempting to get the public to start calling China the mainland instead of China, and so forth, even as China continues to suppress Taiwan in the international sphere.
The local public is well aware that the struggle is not over how to best preserve Taiwan's status quo -- that is merely a conventional wisdom/pro-KMT talking point that circulates in Taipei masquerading as a deep insight in the way that such cynicism always does -- but whether Taiwan will be annexed to China. The widespread perception that Ma is too close to China is an important driver of the recent shifts away from the KMT in 6 of the last 8 elections. The public knows where Ma wants to go.
For those of us who live in Taiwan and have watched this struggle for the last two decades, the sad failure of the media to report it properly is quite illuminating. Just imagine how differently this would be reported if the topic was Russia and Estonia and not China and Taiwan. Can you see: "In fact, the pro-Estonian and pro-Russian parties are having a more sophisticated argument: not about independence or unification, but about how best to preserve a status most people in Estonia cherish."
Taiwan's democracy is an important factor in slowing the rush towards China. Banyan raises the issue of what China will do when it discovers its policies don't work -- but surely Beijing already knows they are not working. A better way to see it is to ask what will happen when Beijing resolves its internal debate over what to do since its annexation policies can't succeed and they know that.
Indeed, one way to see Beijing's "economic carrot" policies is to view them as a way to put off the thorny problem Beijing created for itself when it decided to be completely intractable on the subject of annexing Taiwan. And further -- to build resentment towards Taiwan among its own citizens -- "we're so nice to them, and they are richer than us." I've heard Chinese complain about the "privileges" of Tibetans....
And that decision about Taiwan will certainly come in the context of the heightening of tensions all across Asia by China.
Brrrr.
ADDED: One longtime professional analyst and observer of Taiwan affairs told me this was easily the best piece he's seen on Taiwan in the international media for many years.
____________
Daily Links:
- Millions of tons of rice in China contaminated with metals. I wonder what the score is for Taiwan.
- Chen Yun-lin protests in southern Taiwan on video.
- In other news Chen Shui-bian Veep Annette Lu is still an idiot. Annette, please retire from public life. Tomorrow.
- Some interesting commentary from the US on the AIG-Nanshan sale from a former UN spokesman.
- New RAND study on China's air force.
- Gerrit van der Wees letter in WaPo in response to the Ma interview.
- Taiwan Today: Flora Expo boosts Taiwan's profile
- All Coral reefs to be gone within the lifetime of most of the people now reading this. What will it take to make our governments move on fossil fuels?
[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.
Speaking as the greenish offspring of a blue family, I have no doubt that a considerable portion of the KMT elites subscribe to the whole greater China argument. Nonetheless, Banyan's argument concerning the fear of "provoking China" (note the quotes) does hold true for many (perhaps a majority?) of blue voters that I personally know, coupled with a sense of "mei ban fa" (沒辦法) and a healthy dose of something resembling supply side economics (the wealthy will benefit and the money will trickle down!).
ReplyDeleteWhile the KMT hardliners are unlikely to change their views, one hopes that the DPP is trying to come up with a way of addressing the latter group.
Yes, I can see that. Easily. I expect the wealth to trickle down some this year too.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I hear the words "trickle down", the image of a millionaire urinating off the side of a skyscraper comes to mind. Nonetheless, it is a compelling argument for many people, not just in Taiwan. Why do people lap up those tabloid articles about the year-end parties or bonuses at the likes of Foxconn or HTC? People like to fantasize that someday, they or their children will also be able to partake in such displays of excess.
ReplyDeleteGood work Michael, as usual. Add these:
ReplyDeleteTrickle down economics graphic
Interesting Mao Tse Tung Change must come from a barrel of a gun music video...
I seriously don't get why Ma and the KMT bow down and worship the "1992 consensus" so much.
ReplyDeletesuch as the President, have a powerful ideological commitment to annexation.
ReplyDeleteGot any evidence of that? No, thought not, because there is none outside of the minds of a few pro-green supporters.
You make some excellent points in your analyses (plural not just with this post) then let yourself down with wild statements like the above.
There's one other approach to PRC / ROC relations that you seem to have overlooked here, and that is issues of face. The PRC would lose a lot of face if they publicly stopped claiming Taiwan. Although in private, they know that almost no one in Taiwan desires (re)unification and that the status quo is the best they can ever hope for, that's not something they can ever say publicly. I'd have thought someone with as much experience in this part of the world as you do Turton would know this.
ReplyDeleteGot any evidence of that? No, thought not, because there is none outside of the minds of a few pro-green supporters.
other than his life, his work, his speech, and actions, no, there is no evidence of Ma's ideological commitment... *sigh*
While the KMT hardliners are unlikely to change their views, one hopes that the DPP is trying to come up with a way of addressing the latter group.
ReplyDeletei think there is a path to it, because look at the large number of light blues who swung to Chen Shui-bian in the second election. Obviously the KMT scare tactics failed for a whole generation. there's a latent willingness to switch....
From Ma's perspective Taiwan is already annexed to China - the Republic of China. He is committed to the One China, two governments idea, which is why he is pushing for economic and cultural integration, but it is debatable whether or not he desires political unification.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, a (false?) belief that Taiwan and China can become closer - to the point where everyone is the "same people" - while staying political disjoint.
Ah yes his speech. Like this one recently in the Washington Post.
ReplyDeleteTaiwan "is a sovereign state," Ma said in an interview at the presidential palace here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2011/02/17/ST2011021702597.html?sid=ST2011021702597
Free -- I wish you knew how to comment with a truly critical eye. Ma never said that; Richburg wrote that sloppily in his summary. Ma said "the ROC is a sovereign state."
ReplyDeleteTomato, tomahto.
ReplyDeleteROC = Taiwan.
Hmm, when I read this article and got to the sentence "The DPP paints the KMT as a party of Chinese stooges leading Taiwan blindfold towards absorption by the mainland", I couldn't help but wonder if Banyan was referring to this blog.
ReplyDelete@Free Taiwan
ReplyDeleteROC = Taiwan.
No, not according to the KMT. In KMT wordspeak the ROC = the whole of China. Taiwan = just the island. It's a tricky word game the KMT plays. The entire platform Ma and his KMTards are promoting is a lie.
When are the Taiwan people going to say enough of the bullshit.
Someone hasn't been paying attention. Especially to Ma, the ROC is distinctly different from Taiwan, in that Taiwan is a PART OF the RoC.
ReplyDelete@Michael
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that it is a misquotation, it does cast doubt on the suggestion that Ma wants Taiwan to unify (politically) with China. I think we accept that Ma wants:
(1) for the R.O.C. to continue to exist
(2) for the R.O.C. to maintain control over Taiwan
(and as his quote is the interview suggests)
(3) for the R.O.C. and the P.R.C. to remain two politically separate entities
(These three axioms seem pretty self-evident as being the desires of any blue.)
Therefore, since the ROC controls this and the PRC controls that, it is unlikely that Ma really wants Taiwan to be annexed.
Just because I like putting my hand close to the flame doesn't mean I want to be burned.
Hmm, when I read this article and got to the sentence "The DPP paints the KMT as a party of Chinese stooges leading Taiwan blindfold towards absorption by the mainland", I couldn't help but wonder if Banyan was referring to this blog.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw this comment, I couldn't help but wonder whether you had ever actually read this blog.
@"...whether you had ever actually read this blog"
ReplyDeleteIf you mean that you report on a lot of other things -- like social and environmental issues -- then I take your point. But when it comes to postings about the KMT and the China question, I think Banyan has you covered.
That's not a knock, really. It's just how a zealot's point of view looks from another perspective.
D, at no time have I ever used the term or the concept of stooge or puppet to refer to Ma Ying-jeou, because I don't think he is. Instead I use terms like friend and ally, or pal, when I am feeling light.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I wonder whether you read what is written, or merely scroll through the lines to confirm your own remarkably conventional and not very insightful prejudices, which remind me of Banyan's, except not as well written.
Michael