From: tseng-neill@yale.edu (Neill Tseng)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Military Reunification
Date: 5 Nov 1992 01:23:46 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In a previous article, Joseph Wang writes:

>In article <1d464eINNf61@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> tseng-neill@yale.edu (Neill Tseng) writes:
>
>First of all, your history is wrong.  The Treaty of San Franscisco
>mentions nothing about a referendum on Taiwan, and the ROC claim on
>Taiwan is based not on that Treaty but on the Instrument of Surrender
>of Japan.  The Instrument of Surrender references the Potsdam
>Declaration and this references the Cairo Declaration and both
>transfer title of Taiwan to the Republic of China.

	No, YOUR history is wrong.  First of all, Cairo and Potsdam 
	declarations express the wartime expectations of only THREE of the
	allied powers.  They are not legal documents and they were never 
	ratified.  The issuants lacked the authority to institute a policy
	revision of the expressed scope in the first place.  Wartime
	declarations by one side cannot legally dispose of an enemy's
	territory.  It does not have the legal effect of a postwar treaty.
	General MacArthur simply instructed the KMT on China to accept the
	surrender of Japanese on Taiwan, and to exercise administrative control
	"as a trustee on behalf of the Allied Powers."  This in no way gave
	Taiwan to China.  As further evidence, MacArthur asked the KMT to also
	temporarily occupy Northern Vietnam, yet no one argues that the Chinese
	have a claim to that nation.

	Secondly, the San Francisco Peace Treaty postdates the Cairo and
	Potsdam declarations anyway, since it was signed in 1951.  The
	delegates to the San Francisco conference explicitly stated that the
	status of Taiwan should be decided ACCORDING TO THE WISHES OF THE
	PEOPLE LIVING ON THE ISLAND.  Therefore, the only way to determine the
	status of Taiwan is a vote in a plebiscite among the Taiwanese on
	their political future!  This is the way it is under international
	law, in the Charter of the U.N., and in many U.N. resolutions.  Most
	importantly, this is how it is in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
	That is why I say there must be a referendum!  Let the Taiwanese
	people decide for themselves!
>
>Second, the DPP fought and lost the last election on the issue of TI.
>There seems to be relatively little support in Taiwan right now for
>"independence."  Until and unless, TI shows more support than it did
>last December, I think it's silly to talk about a referendum on it.

	First of all, estimates and informal polls show that 95% of the
	electorate supports Independence in itself.  The reason this is not
	reflected in the polls is because of the KMT's vote-buying and command
	of the airwaves.  As I said earlier, these polls are not accurate 
	because freedom of speech is not always guaranteed, and people must
	always fear for their safety given the KMT's harsh tactics.

	Secondly, why does this make it silly to talk about a referendum?  A
	referendum is clearly mandated by historical documents and 
	international law.  Moreover, I clearly proved in my previous postings
	why a referendum is in everyone's interests, including those in
	support of the current regime!  Go back and read these and only say
	something when you have a relevant response!  I'm not going to repeat
	my words here.  My point is, if you are so sure that the people are
	against independence, what harm will a referendum do?  Especially since
	it's overdue by over 40 years!

>What you don't seem to understand is that the people on Taiwan have
>weighed the options and it seems that in their opinion "status quo" or
>"de facto two China" is the best solution to Mainland/Taiwan
>relations.  It gets Taiwan all of the benefits of independence, it
>doesn't get the Mainland too upset, and it opens up a lot of
>opportunities for business on the Mainland.

	No, part of this is addressed above.  Additionally, it does not get
	Taiwan any benefits of independence!  I will address these benefits
	below.  Furthermore, I have already stated before why it is not
	necessarily in the Mainland's interests to militarily attack, and why
	international pressure could be mounted to preclude this.  This will
	all be answered more specifically in the paragraphs below.
>
>The decision has already been made on Taiwan to choose "status quo"
>for the next several years until it's clearer what will happen on the
>Mainland.  Since Taiwan has largely decided what to do, most of the
>argument on this topic seems strangely to be among people with
>American-born people.

	Only because they are the ones guaranteed freedom of speech and
	living in a free, democratic society.  Many Taiwanese have tried to
	voice their views.  Most of them have ended up in jail, tortured, or
	dead.  The KMT has always been ruthless with their political
	opponents.  The examples are too numerous to name all of them here,
	but do the names Chen-wen Cheng and Henry Liu ring a bell?  It's no
	wonder that people on Taiwan are afraid to speak out.  And do you
	think that the overseas Taiwanese would go through all the trouble,
	all the hassle, all the risk of torture, death, and being blacklisted,
	if they did not want to speak out for the suppressed Taiwanese?
	Trust me, they have better things to do with their time!  They are
	speaking out because they are the only ones who can!  If the TI
	movement were to die overseas, then it would be quickly and silently
	eliminated within the walls of Taiwan by the ruthless KMT in one fell
	swoop! 
>
>Third, you misunderstand my position.  I am in favor of a "one
>economic China, two political Chinas" solution for the time being
>(i.e. the next 20 years).  The Mainland government is too
>underdeveloped politically for political unification to be a serious
>option at this time, but everyone wins with a single economic unit
>called "Greater China."  I have no objection to "dual recognition" or
>a seat in the United Nations for both the ROC and PRC.

	That is not necessarily true.  There are many gains to be made for
	Taiwan itself through independence.  Then, it could be formally
	recognized by many foreign nations and negotiate more treaties and
	business agreements, as well as join in international instruments
	such as GATT.  Since the "three noes" still exist regarding relations
	with China, these could be formally abolished with a declaration of
	independence, opening up even more avenues for trade with the mainland.
	While there may be some economic benefits to a "Greater China", you 
	must prove that they are a *comparative advantage* to economic
	benefits from independence.  Dual recognition will not
	come about until Taiwan loses its status as an international orphan;
	the only way it can do that is by achieving its independence.
>
>>       What political, economical, and cultural
>>	reasons are there that make it advantageous to think of "Taiwan as a
>>	de facto self-governing part of China?" 
>
>1. Politically, it reduces the possibility of a Mainland invasion.

	That is a military reason, not a political reason.  Politically,
	there is no benefit.  Authoritarian rule continues, Taiwan's orphan
	stuatus continues, and Taiwan remains diplomatically isolated.
	The KMT and CCP continue their age-old struggle.  Additionally, there 
	is no reason why international pressure could be
	mounted on the Chinese not to attack Taiwan; the U.S. and other
	nations could easily do this through monetary, economic, political,
	and other mechanisms.  But overseas Taiwanese must unite on the
	issue first to convince their governments, and a referendum must be
	allowed so foreign nations can see that the Taiwanese truly want their
	independence.  The longer we wait, the less pressing the issue becomes
	to foreign governments, and the harder it is to achieve independence.
>
>2. Economically, Ten billion US dollars/year in duty-free trade with
>the Mainland, and terms for Taiwan companies that are unavailable to
>non-Chinese.  

	Economically, trade opens up with many new nations as official
	diplomatic recognition is attained.  As China realizes that its claim
	to Taiwan has been voided, it comes to reality and concedes that
	maintenance of economic relations with the new independent Taiwan is
	in its best interests.  The three noes and other old hostilities KMT-
	CCP hostilities are abolished, and trade is allowed to flourish even
	more (i.e. all direct links allowed, etc.).  Taiwan is able to reduce
	the exorbitant % of GDP spent on the military and can rechannel those
	funds into investment in the island and the people.
>
>3. Culturally, one is heir to five thousand years of history.

	Five thousand years of Chinese history.  The problem is, many of the
	people are native Taiwanese.  Although much of Taiwan's culture comes
	from China, it is unique because it also contains influences from
	Dutch and Japanese culture, as well as Aboriginal culture,
	that Chinese culture does not contain.  Since the KMT's arrival on 
	Taiwan in 1945, it has suppressed much of Taiwan's cultural richness, 
	utilizing the attitude "We are all Chinese."  Taiwanese folk music,
	Taiwanese opera, Taiwanese folk dancing, are all uniquely Taiwanese
	and not from the Mainland.  These could all flourish
	if Taiwan were to gain its Independence, free from the KMT's 
	ideology that "We are all Chinese."   At the same time, those who
	are from the Mainland could continue to practice their culture.  The
	result is more diversity and a richer culture.
>
>>       Do these outweigh the benefits of TI? 
>
>Your turn.  What exactly are the benefits of TI?  

	Many are listed above.  These alone outweigh and outnumber your scant
	"benefits."  But furthermore, you continue to ignore the moral aspect
	of the issue.  A people are being deprived of their independence and
	sovereignty.  This is not right.  They have suffered many human rights
	abuses and authoritarian practices as a result.  There is no such thing
	as "fair-weather" Independence.  It is an issue in itself, an ethical
	and moral issue.  If the people have the right to be independent, then
	no one has the right to deprive them of this right!  You do not have
	the right to say wait 20 or 30 years, or completely withold the right
	from them.  You contend that there are dangers to declaring 
	independence.  But you never prove that independence, in itself, is
	wrong or undesirable.  If you claim that there may be side effects to
	claiming independence, I say we work to stop these effects!  Like I
	said previously, you cannot try to obscure or ignore a problem.  If
	there is a threat from the mainland, you must deal with that directly!
	Pressure the U.S. and other governments to act!  You cannot say, let's
	deprive the Taiwanese people so we don't have to worry about the
	Mainland.  You must deal with the Mainland!  Do you think Pres. Clinton
	would give up the U.S.'s sovereignty to Great Britain if it meant that
	there would cease to be any military threats to the U.S.?  Of course 
	not!  My point is, independence is paramount!  Deal with other issues
	as they must be dealt with, but don't short-change independence or the
	people any longer!

>
>>	If in practical, everyday terms Taiwan and China are
>>	separate, why not declare it openly and politically?
>
>In practical, everyday terms Taiwan and the Mainland are rapidly
>turning into an entity called "Greater China."

	And this "Greater China" only serves to further obscure Taiwan's
	status.  Why must it be recognized as "Greater China" instead of the
	independent entity it should be, the Republic of Taiwan?  Instead,
	Taiwan continues to flounder in the international community, without
	any identity whatsoever.  Although going to the Olympics separately,
	Taiwan is "Chinese Taipei."  Why must we go through this semantic
	and political slop any longer?  Just let Taiwan be Taiwan!	
>
>>       And finally, I'd like to 
>>	underscore once again that the danger posed by the mainland must not
>>	be used as an argument against TI! 
>
>Why not?  It's a valid concern. 

	This is clearly answered above.  If it is a concern, deal with the
	concern!  Don't try to take the easy way out and just turn away from
	it!  Additionally, there are moral and ethical considerations which
	cannot be ignored.
>
>>       Additionally, I believe that the fact that the two
>>	are so economically intertwined would make the possibility of an
>>	attack by the mainland even more unlikely, for this would disrupt the
>>	mainland's already-ailing economy.  The mainland needs trade with
>>	Taiwan more than Taiwan needs trade with the mainland.
>
>The Mainland economy is not ailing.  There are some things to be
>careful about (like inflation and the government deficit), but the
>Mainland GNP has been growing at a rate of 9%/year.  This is one
>reason why independence is so unattractive.  Taiwanese want to join in
>the economic boom on the Mainland, and independence would prevent that
>from happening.

	No, there is no fundamental reason why.  I have proven this above.
	Moreover, if the two were to be reunified, Taiwan's funds would have
	to be shared with the rest of the mainland.  They would be channeled
	in the budget to the poor provinces of China, and Taiwan would end
	up deprived.  Also, I listed many economic benefits to be gained with
	the rest of the world above.
>
>As for the fact that attacking Taiwan will hurt the Mainland economy,
>I agree 100 percent, and so the Mainland is very unlikely to attack
>Taiwan unless it is severely provoked.  "Status quo" is not a serious
>provocation.  "Independence" is.
>
	First, you must prove that the Mainland would accept the severe
	economic dislocations and attack anyway.  Not only would China lose
	its valuable trade with Taiwan, but the rest of its economy would be
	hurt by an attack as well.   Would the Chinese government be willing
	to accept the resultant increase in government spending, especially
	with the inflation and deficit you note above?  Would they be willing
	to do so at the risk of jeopardizing their 9% GNP growth?  Would they
	be willing to accept the shame, sanctions, and loss of face in the
	international community that would accompany such an attack, especially
	in the tide of democratic change and self-determination that has
	engulfed the world in the 1990s?



-- 
Neill Tseng (neill@minerva.cis.yale.edu)
The Showdown:  Outrage 7, Whip Appeal 5
Hurt Me...The Legend Lives On (3-on-3 champs of the world)
Proud to be a Taiwanese-American!