Left Flank

Robert «The Only Redhead», both in the comments and his post, uses Taiwan and the direct flights issue as an example of a twist of thinking that annoys me to no end, the continuum with no middle.On one end, there's politics; on the other, there's the economy. To use Robert's example, there's the neocons and their nationalist obsessions, and there's the business wonks and their neoliberal fantasies. Never do the two ends meet, politics and economy. And, if they do, in Taiwan, as Michael Turton has doggedly argued, the media spins it back into the ends.

Right now, it seems that China has gotten everything it wants out of the deal, and Taiwan’s gotten little, because the KMT isn’t willing to stand up and make sure that Taiwan gets its cut.

I can’t reiterate this enough. I’m not denying that the cross-strait flights are a good thing. While I certainly don’t think they they’ll be the economic boon that the KMT is claiming they will be, and I’m not alone, I have hope for moderate benefits, both financial and cultural. It’s just a shame that KMT was so ready to back down, not daring to demand the PRC compromise.

There can be two Chinas, or a China and a Taiwan, if the Taiwanese people so choose. Both can be successful trading partners, too. Taiwan is not beholden to those who want to an easier way to make money, or the arms merchants.

Anyway, I really like this blog!

CFR's Jayshree Bajoria (cross-Strait economic "dependence") and The China Beat's Paul R Katz ("politics of the pocketbook") both agree economic policy and PRC played a major role in the KMT victory in Taiwanese presidential elections. Yet, there's more to the election than just self-interest.

Bajoria puts paid to the notion Taiwanese voters are ready to return to Mother China:

But a policy of greater cross-Strait cooperation from Taipei needs to be met with a similar approach from China, writes Alan D. Romberg, director of the East AsiaProgram at the Henry L. Stimson Center. He says China's failure to do so «will risk destroying the opportunity that now exists to stabilize cross-Strait relations for a considerable time to come.»

The KMT win in presidential elections may reflect the public's desire for less provocative policies toward the mainland, but it does not diminish Taiwan's desire (WSJ) to be treated as a sovereign state for the foreseeable future, writes Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute. «If China can accept that important but limited improvement in relations, we shall see a period of welcome calm in the Taiwan Strait.» Following China's crackdown on pro-independence protests in Tibet, rhetoric from both candidates made it clear that they were not willing to compromise on what they saw as the island's sovereignty (Taipei Times).

A recent opinion poll in Taiwan by U.S.-based Zogby International notes 63 percent of respondents viewed their country as a sovereign and independent country and 71 percent described themselves as Taiwanese. Only 5 percent said they were «Chinese.» The growing Taiwanese «identity» shift may also increase the voice for de jure independence, writes CFR Military Fellow Captain Jeffrey A. Harley in the Harvard International Review. Now is the time, he argues, for the United States to resolve its existing policy ambiguities in its relations with Taiwan and China.

Katz lauds Taiwanese political maturity:

What the KMT's return to power means for Taiwan's future remains to be seen, but one should give utmost credit to the maturation of its democratic system. Unlike what happened following the presidential election of 2000, when the KMT lost power, this time there were no protests or riots, just tears and concern for what may lie in store. The day after the election, my family and visited the venerable Huang Kunbin ??? (affectionately known as 'Uncle Kunbin' or Khun-pin peh ??? in Southern Min) at his some in Tainan County. The star of the touching documentary about Taiwan's farmers entitled "Let it Be" (Wumile ???), Khun-pin-beh is a symbol of all that is good about Taiwan. He was philosophical about the results, noting that: "When the curtain comes down, it's time for the play to end."

So, be scared, Seoul (for once, South Korean xenophobia and self-importance might serve a beneficial purpose)!

The CSM asks, "Will Beijing ever get the point?"

Time is on Taiwan's side as its democracy matures and its de facto independence becomes widely accepted. The "new" KMT cannot now return to its old authoritarian, corrupt ways or it will lose the very US support that keeps Taiwan from being swallowed by the dragon and allows democracy to flourish.

The US showed its resolve to defend Taiwan in 1996 during a cross-strait crisis in which China lobbed "test" missiles toward the island. Now this potential flash point of Asia has used its democracy once again to show the world – and especially China – how a people can collectively correct their leaders through ballots instead of bullets.

Shall I punctuate the point, after last year's 17th Party Congress farce? "The March 22 election was the second time this 'Chinese democracy' saw a transfer of power, serving as a model for what China could be." Michael Turton, even in his despair, adds color.

Another thing -- the atmosphere in Taipei is nightmarish. Never again will I spend an election there -- the conventional wisdom is totally out of touch with the reality of the electorate. In 2004 I stayed in Taichung and got a pretty good line on what would happen, but not this time. I used to describe what circulates in Taipei as a cloud cuckoo-land of KMT talking points, but even that isn't right -- I lack a good grip on the kind of language to characterize its vast and all-encompassing wrongness. As reporters were churning out articles saying that the election was going to be tight Ma win, as speakers everywhere were retreating to positions of nervous ambiguity, and people talking to both campaigns said it would be tight, voters were preparing to hand Ma a 17 point victory. On Friday the DPP was saying it was seeing a late surge for Frank Hsieh, which I didn't report because it so obviously reeked of lying spin. But some apparently did. Nobody I talked to in the capital even got a whiff of a 17 point Ma victory, though all thought he'd win. Certainly somebody knew, because there were massive capital inflows into Taiwan in the last week before the election as international capital prepared to hollow out Taiwan like a gourd invest in our fine nation in anticipation of a Ma victory. Ironically, the nearest polls were the nutcase polls in the pro-Ma papers, though a close examination will show they were nowhere near correct either.

Voter patterns! I'll have a full discussion on them later this week. One thing that really really really stands out here is the desperate need for thorough, credible, detailed survey work that is reliable through time. Tomorrow's analyses in Taipei are going to be largely groups of people talking without the numbers to back them up.

It all sounds like a modern democracy, even if most news organizations have their own pro-Beijing spin.

Should we keep a vigil for KMT autocracy?

Michael Goldfarb adds his strident support for Taiwan's deployment of the Hsiung Feng 2E (Brave Wind) land attack cruise missile, even if the Bush administration is balking. There are two other choice pro-Taipei quotes in the Defense News article Goldfarb excerpts worth emphasizing.

The officials said the HF-2E makes tactical and strategic sense.

«It is the politicians and diplomats who have problems with it,» the MND official said. «How many times have they asked Taiwan not to politicize defense? KMT [The Kuomintang] kills it because it pleases Beijing and Washington, and they think Beijing won't attack Taiwan once they are in power [in 2008]. A dangerous thought.»

(…)

Alexander Huang, a senior associate at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies who lives in Taipei, believes the HF-2E project can help Taiwan in missile-related technologies.

«The LACM [land attack cruise missile], if successfully developed, could be a tactical deterrent, and strategic bargaining chip in possible military CBMs,» or confidence-building measures, he said.

«Should a military conflict be unavoidable, firing LACMs with the Taiwan military emblem can indirectly give the U.S. some flexibility in diplomatic terms. Close command-to-command consultation and real-time notification between Taipei and Camp Smith will reduce the risk of unintended incidents. In short, I am not naïve nor hawkish, but I support the program.»

If all else fails, then perhaps the environmental argument that President Chen Shui-bien tabled on a trip to the Spratly's is a decent opening move.

Taiwan Echo utters a panegyric for the narrowly ruling DPP:

Awaiting ahead for Taiwanese is again a sinolized society hijacked by never-fading local warlords --- which is what Taiwanese fought so hard to get rid of. Now they welcome it back with their own ballots.

OK, this is not the anti-Beijing argument, is it?

Taiwan's main opposition Nationalist Party (KMT) thrashed the ruling DPP in legislative elections on Saturday, strengthening its bid to recapture the presidency in March and heralding better relations with China.

I'm amazed any news organization could gloat about a rapprochement between republican Taiwan and autocratic China as anything other than a defeat for freedom and moderation. But, that's what the line has been:

I suppose it is pointless to observe that Chen was widely hailed as pragmatic and conciliatory when he came to power in 2000 and has remained a "moderate" -- only in the Cloud Cuckoo-land of writing on cross strait relations can a lifelong moderate who advocates peaceful democratic change like Chen Shui-bian be portrayed as a "radical." But heck -- why refer to the complexities of history when you can source ideas from the KMT so much more easily?

(…)

Taiwan threatens no one. It carries out policy by peaceful means. It has done so since anyone can remember. And yet, pundits can write that our moderation is "fragile." At any moment, we could break out into.....what? A public referendum? An attempt to enter the WHO? The mind reels. For crissake we're a frickin' democracy here! We're moderate by definition.

Another travesty of the FT article is this:

The KMT won its landslide victory »because Taiwanese people have used their wisdom to vote against corruption and incompetence in the government,» said Tsai Chin-lung, who won a seat in Taichung for the party. »Taiwanese people are really outraged with what the government is doing,» he said.

The result shows that the people of Taiwan want change, said Chao Chien-min, professor at National Chengchi University. »The second thing is the economy: Chen Shui-bian doesn't understand the economy. He always thinks it's OK just to be political.»

To which Michael Turton also replies:

One predominant myth that colors academic discourse on Taiwan, which I have frequently argued against, is that local voters prefer candidates who are not corrupt. I think this election will forever do that myth in. The middle class here does not want clean government -- it wants government that will assure the flow of funds from the center out to the electorate -- and clean government won't do that. The preference for corrupt candidates -- of which there are countless examples here in Taiwan -- also bodes ill for democratic development in China. Jim Mann has already argued in his recent book The China Fantasy that the middle class in China will ally itself with the authoritarian state to protect its privileges against urban and rural poor. Here is another incentive for them to keep the authoritarian state in being -- corruption helps sustain the political economy of local contracting and development that keeps local middle classes happy.

Beijing and the KMT are doing a wonderful job undermining Taiwan's independence, and the Bush administration deserves the assist.

Now that the Bush administration has achieved «something» on the Korean peninsula, perhaps it could do something about Taiwan. But, not just what Beijing wants. Michael Turton's apoplectic response to a Reuters article towing the Communist line,/a> is noteworthy in itself.

It's always worth pointing out: China can bluntly say (1) we're threatening war and (2) we're not going to negotiate even one little bit but you can read in actual analysis from thinking human beings that - I'm not making this up - President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan is a radical. I suppose, from the point of view of a human history that offers us about 100,000 years of conflict settled by force, that democracy and referendums are a rather radical approach....

Taiwan's president Chen Shui-bien gave a great interview to Der Spiegel, and his response to Beijing is just as dramatic and noteworthy.

SPIEGEL: Your desire to be admitted into the UN would be more likely to succeed if you could come to terms with Beijing - just as the two German nations did 35 years ago.

Chen: We want to negotiate with China, and we see Germany as a model. But for the Chinese there is nothing but the One China policy. Beijing apparently has no interest in dialogue.

SPIEGEL: But you consider reunification with China both possible and desirable?

Chen: We have no way of knowing what will happen in the future. Currently, at any rate, reunification is out of the question.

So, can the US Congress help Taiwan?

...the US Congress, which houses the largest collection of invertebrates outside the Smithsonian, took the State Department to task for its opposition to Taiwan's purchase of F-16s, and sent a resolution through the Committee on the F-16 purchase...

The US opposes the deployment of cruise missiles because they are «offensive weapons» but it wants to sell Taiwan submarines- which it told Taiwan it could not have for the twenty years prior to 2001 - because they were «offensive weapons.» And of course, the 1,000 missiles that China aims at Taiwan receive no attention....I guess they must be defensive weapons.

Seriously, readers, tell me who you think is more dangerous, Taiwan or the PRC?