Political independence for the island of Taiwan has been a long-smoldering controversy. Recently “President” Chen Shui-bian deliberately fanned the issue, causing it to burst into flames. Halfway into his illegal and illegitimate “second term,” Chen’s approval ratings had fallen to a mere 10% according to most public opinion polls, and as low as 5% according to one poll. Chen desperately needed to divert public attention from his administration’s rampant corruption and to consolidate support for himself among Taiwan independence hardliners. Therefore on January 29, 2006, Chinese New Year, Chen deliberately and maliciously dropped a political bombshell, by announcing that he was contemplating abolishing the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines.
Chen’s ploy worked, like a charm. With the notable exception of the popular TV talk show “21:00, The People Speak,” whose panelists refused to be diverted from their ongoing investigation into ruling DPP malfeasance, most of the media began talking about Taiwan independence vs. Chinese reunification. Few in the media talked about the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit (KMRT) scandal and other outrageous ruling DPP regime scandals.
Taiwan Independence, Not an Option
Is Taiwan independence an option?
The short answer is no, absolutely not.
Taiwan independence, as even Chen Shui-bian himself conceded in a moment of rare honesty, is “self-delusion [and] a myth.” Taiwan independence is not a real world option by any criterion one cares to contemplate. Taiwan independence is neither constitutionally permissible, nor politically practicable, nor culturally justifiable, nor economically profitable. Taiwan independence is a non-starter, any way one looks at it.
Pan Blue Apologism
Given this harsh reality, one would think that Pan Blue political leaders would have an easy time rebutting the ridiculous claims of Pan Green demagogues. One would think that demolishing Pan Green arguments for Taiwan independence would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Alas, this has not been the case. Pan Blue political leaders have seldom succeeded in hitting any Pan Green fish as they swam mindlessly in rhetorical circles. More often than not they have succeeded only in shooting themselves in the foot, in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Long-suffering Pan Blue supporters have a expression for this phenomenon “you li shuo bu qin,” which roughly translated means, “To be in the right, but unable to make one’s case.”
A February 15, 2006 China Post article entitled “KMT tries to clarify ad with independence as possibility” reports on the latest outbreak of this chronic Pan Blue ailment:
Kuomintang (KMT) leader Ma Ying-jeou and other officials yesterday scrambled to clarify an advertisement published by the party suggesting the KMT viewed independence for Taiwan as a possible option. In a front page advertisement in the independence-leaning Liberty Times the KMT’s central headquarters published an ad touting democracy as a means of determining the island’s future and listing independence as an option.
“The Chinese KMT firmly believes in the spirit of democracy that there are many possible options for Taiwan’s future. The people should decide on these options, regardless of whether it is unification, independence or maintaining the status quo,” the advertisement said.
Listing independence as an option for the island’s future would run counter to the KMT’s official charter and platform, which advocates eventual unification with the mainland. The advertisement was dubbed by local media yesterday as an enormous policy turnaround for Taiwan’s largest opposition party.
Despite hasty damage control clarifying the “independence is an option” issue as a misunderstanding, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou has already suffered political damage that he, the Pan Blue parties, and the Republic of China can ill afford. A February 16, 2006 ERA TV opinion poll revealed that 36.6% of the public believes that Ma’s current position on reunification and independence is either “very different” or “slightly different” from what it was before the advertisement ran. Considering that Ma’s approval rating stood at 80% following the December 2005 County and Municipal Elections, the perception that Ma’s position now is either “very different” or “slightly different” can hardly be considered a positive development.
Lien Chan’s retirement from the political stage leaves Ma Ying-jeou as the sole remaining Pan Blue leader in a position to rescue the island from Taiwan independence Quisling misrule. A Pan Blue loss in 2008 is not an option. Four more years of Pan Green “wen hua tai du” (culturally-oriented Taiwan independence) indoctrination is a prospect too appalling to contemplate. That is why public relations disasters such as the “independence is an option” fiasco must never happen again.
“The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt.”
~ Ayn Rand
How did this “independence is an option” fiasco happen? More importantly, why did it happen? Most importantly, how can it be prevented from happening ever again?
This and other similar fiascoes happened because too many Pan Blue leaders feel morally disarmed in the face of Pan Green Political Correctness. They feel morally disarmed, despite the fact that they are in the right and their Pan Green adversaries are in the wrong, because they lack confidence in their own “zhong ji tong yi” (Eventual Reunification) political ideal. As a result, Pan Green assertions of the “Right of Self-Determination” appear as sacred cows to which they must meekly yield the right of way.
Pan Blue leaders must take the time to understand the merits and demerits of Pan Blue and Pan Green ideology, inside out, backwards and forwards. Only then will Pan Blue leaders be able to look Pan Green adversaries straight in the eye, confident in the knowledge that they, not their adversaries, occupy the moral as well as legal high ground.
Pan Blue leaders must satisfy themselves that Eventual Reunification within the framework of Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law, soundly trumps petty ethnic Hoklo Fascist “nation-building” in accordance with the Rule of the Mob. Only then will Pan Blue leaders realize that they need not, nay, must not, make timid concessions to Pan Green Political Correctness.
As Ayn Rand aptly noted, “The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt.”
Pan Blue leaders, who after all, are Chinese patriots, must recall the wisdom of the great Chinese military strategist, Sun Zi, who wrote: “Know yourself, know your enemy. A hundred battles, a hundred victories.”
Self-Determination for All
Does the “Right of Self-Determination” confer legal, and more importantly, moral legitimacy on the secessionist demands of Taiwan independence Quislings? Does the “Right of Self-Determination” leave Pan Blue leaders who insist on Eventual Reunification in accordance with Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law with no leg to stand on?
Hardly. The “Right of Self-Determination” is a double-edged sword, an extremely sharp sword that cuts both ways.
As famed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises noted in his book Liberalism:
“The right of self-determination … is … the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.”
If Taiwan independence Quislings expect others to honor their demands for political secession from China, then they are obligated to honor others’ demands for political secession from any “Nation of Taiwan” they might succeed in founding. If Taiwan independence Quislings refuse to honor others’ demands for political secession from any “Nation of Taiwan” they might succeed in founding, then others are not obligated to honor their demands for political secession from China.
The Republic of Singapore is a sovereign and independent nation, and a member of the United Nations. With a population of just over 4 million, three-fourths of whom are ethnic Chinese, Singapore is a mere fifth the size of the Taiwan region of China, with a population just under 23 million. Using Singapore as a hypothetical standard, one could form five independent nations from the population of Taiwan.
The Republic of Nauru, a tiny island in the remote South Pacific, is also a sovereign and independent nation, also a member of the United Nations. With a population of 13,000 and a land area of 21 square kilometers, Nauru is the smallest nation on earth, in both population and land area. Using Nauru as a hypothetical standard, one could form nearly 1,800 [ ! ] independent republics from the population of Taiwan.
Principled and consistent application of the “Right of Self-Determination” would legitimize the secession of ever smaller political entities from whatever larger political entity they currently belong to, stopping only at the level of the individual. Principled and consistent application of the “Right of Self-Determination” would authorize every property owner on earth to hold a referendum, with himself as the sole voter, declare his own private plot of land a sovereign republic, and refuse to pay taxes to the nation, the state or province, the city or county in which he (formerly) resided.
During the bitter post-election protests in 2004, many Pan Blue protestors suggested that rather than suffer passively as Pan Green Quislings engaged in creeping secession from China, the Pan Blue democratic majority on Taiwan ought to seize the initiative and declare an independent loyalist Chinese republic in the northern half of the island, confirm Lien Chan as Pan Blue president, pay taxes to Pan Blue officials, and leave Taiwan independence Quislings in the south to starve themselves to death with their economically suicidal protectionist policies.
As a champion of “market anarchism” aka “anarcho-capitalism,” I am willing to accept the natural outcome of principled and consistent application of the “Right of Self-Determination.” In fact, I welcome it.
Self-Determination for Me
Are Taiwan independence Quislings principled and consistent champions of the “Right of Self-Determination?”
Are they willing to honor demands for political independence from any would-be “Republic of Taiwan” they might succeed in establishing?
Is anyone obligated to honor their self-righteous, unilateral demands for political independence from China?
The answer to all these questions is “No, no, and no.”
Taiwan independence Quislings are self-centered narcissists who demand independence for themselves, but refuse to allow independence for others. I made this point in my column seven years ago, in 1999. At the time I was merely making a logical inference. Now I am citing an established fact.
To wit, a June 16, 2004 Singapore’s Straits Times news article entitled “Taipei forcibly evicts hundreds who settled on leased government land as their ‘country within a country.'”
TAIPEI President Chen Shui-bian, widely believed to want independence for Taiwan, has, ironically, denied the same to a group who are the original Taiwanese the aborigines. His government, on learning that hundreds of them have formed their own “Kaosha Republic,” ordered a crackdown, sending in 500 armed police to disperse them from a site they have claimed as the seat of their republic. The police raided the 6ha site in southern Kaohsiung county early yesterday, ordering the inhabitants to evacuate before four bulldozers tore down the more than 270 illegal structures. The residents claimed they had been tricked by Chen aides, who had told them that if they supported his re-election, their “republic” would be legalised … “A-Bian told us he would establish ‘country within country’ relations with the aborigines if we voted for him,” said Mr Tang Chao-cheng, a self-proclaimed “Speaker” of the “Taiwan People Parliament.” [The] Kaosha Republic… had its own flag and anthem, and a temporary government and parliament.
One of the most frequently heard complaints from Taiwan independence Quislings is that authorities on the Chinese mainland refuse to refrain from using force to forestall Taiwan independence.
This is perfectly true. But so what?
Ruling DPP regime behavior while suppressing Kaosha Republic independence demonstrated that Taiwan independence Quislings had no qualms whatsoever about using force to prevent Taiwan’s Aborigines from seceding from their Hoklo Chauvinist “Republic of Taiwan.” Not a single Pan Green champion of independence for Taiwan raised his voice in protest when their Fhrer Chen Shui-bian ordered storm troopers and bulldozers to forestall independence from Taiwan. Not one.
Nor did a single Pan Green champion of “Taiwan’s Right of Self-Determination” raise his voice in protest when their Vice-Fhrer Annette Lu scapegoated Taiwan’s Aborigines, blaming them for overdevelopment, deforestation, soil erosion, and flooding in Taiwan’s central mountain range. Aboriginal victims of Tropical Storm Mindulle, Lu declared, deserved no sympathy. They should be relocated en masse to Central and South America for damaging Taiwan’s ecology. The island should be left in the hands of those whom Taiwan independence fascists designate as “real Taiwanese,” i.e., themselves.
What right do they have to complain when Pan Blue leaders insist on defending the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of China, the first and oldest republic in Asia, one that has been in continuous existence since 1912, and whose constitution was modeled on the Constitution of the United States of America?
For that matter, what right to they have to complain when mainland Chinese authorities pass an “Anti-Secession Law” defending the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of China against undisguised Japanese Neocolonialism?
One Standard for All
“Moral judgments must be “universalizable.” This notion owed something to the ancient Golden Rule… anyone who uses such terms as right and ought is logically committed to universalizability. To say that a moral judgment must be universalizable means… if I judge a particular action… to be wrong, I must also judge any relevantly similar action to be wrong. The same judgment must be made in all conceivable cases… the same prescription has to be made in all hypothetically, as well as actually, similar cases.”
~ Britannica.com, Ethics/20th-century Western ethics/Metaethics/Universal prescriptivism
If the nations of the world wish to adopt revolutionary new rules authorizing the “Right of Self-determination,” then they are obligated to honor everyones’ “Right of Self-Determination,” not just some peoples’ “Right of Self-Determination.”
As the Britannica.com entry made abundantly clear, moral judgments must be universalizable. The same judgment must be made in all conceivable cases. The same prescription has to be made in all hypothetically as well as actually similar cases.
If, on the other hand, the nations of the world wish to abide by traditional rules governing national sovereignty and territorial integrity, then patriotic Chinese on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland are fully within their rights to insist that Taiwan independence is not an option, that Taiwan independence Quislings have no right to demand secession from China, and that the nations of the world must respect China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Pan Blue leaders can and ought to look Pan Green adversaries straight in the eye, confident in the knowledge that they, not their Pan Green adversaries, occupy the moral as well as legal high ground. Eventual Reunification within the Rule of Law framework of a long-established constitutional republic soundly trumps race-based Hoklo Fascist “nation-building” on the basis of “democratic” Mob Rule. Not only do Pan Blue leaders have no obligation to make pusillanimous concessions to Pan Green Political Correctness, they have a solemn obligation to seize the initiative and thoroughly discredit Pan Green ethnic bigotry.
The Democratic Progressive Party’s Demagogic Populist Propaganda
H.L. Mencken defined a demagogue as “one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”
Tsai Huang-liang is the director of the Democratic Progressive Party’s Culture and Information Department. In other words, he is their chief demagogue.
On February 27, 2006, Tsai Huang-liang posted an article at the Taipei Times, posing the rhetorical question, “Would Ma allow vote on nation’s future?” In posting the article and posing the question, Tsai was fulfilling his duty as chief demagogue. He was preaching Taiwan independence doctrines he knew to be untrue to men he knew to be idiots.
Tsai’s smarmy, self-righteous question for Ma Ying-jeou was a rhetorical trap intended to achieve one of two results.
One, Tsai was trying to pressure Ma Ying-jeou into conceding “Of course I would allow a vote on the nation’s future, after all there are many possible options for Taiwan’s future. The 23 million people on Taiwan should decide on these options, regardless of whether it is unification, independence, or maintaining the status quo.”
If Ma were to yield to such pressure and make such a public declaration, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura would have extorted a strategic concession from the undisputed leader of the Pan Blue alliance, for which there would be hell to pay down the road. Ma would either have to repudiate his initial concession, in which case he would come across as weak and indecisive, or he would have to make endless future concessions consistent with his initial concession, in which case the both the Kuomintang and the Republic of China would be forever lost.
Two, if Ma Ying-jeou remained sufficiently alert to steer clear of Tsai’s rhetorical trap, Tsai would attempt to make Ma’s refusal to take the bait appear guiltily evasive.
If this sounds like a case of “you can’t win for losing,” you’re right. Finding oneself trapped in such a no-win situation is the predictable result of ideological confusion. Ideological confusion leads to ideological self-doubt. Ideological self-doubt leads to ideological evasion. Ideological evasion leads to ideological passivity, to a cringing, defensive political posture in which one waits to be hit and is too cowed by “unearned guilt” to even complain.
The only escape from such a dilemma is to stop defending and start attacking. In politics as in sports, the best defense is a good offense.
To stop defending and start attacking however, one must first clarify ones’ own ideological position and confirm that one holds the moral as well as practical high ground. Only then can one seize the initiative and go on the offensive.
Let’s see how Tsai is guilt-tripping Ma Ying-jeou with Taiwan independence Political Correctness, and how Ma Ying-jeou can turn things around.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang notes that ‘During Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou’s tour of Europe, the KMT placed an advertisement in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister paper), stating that, “The Chinese Nationalist Party firmly believes that, in keeping with the spirit of democracy, there are many options for Taiwan’s future, be it reunification, independence or the status quo. It is necessary that the choice be made by the people.”‘
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Let’s not mince words. Tsai may be wrong about everything else, but he’s right about the ill-conceived KMT ad. The KMT ad in the Liberty Times was a fiasco. It “gave away the store.” KMT Chairman KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou had to repudiate it, and having repudiated it, must not second-guess himself.
“In keeping with the spirit of democracy?”
What democracy? The Republic of China is not a democracy. It is a republic, a constitutional republic.
Under a democracy, there are indeed “many options for the nation’s future,” because under a democracy anything goes. A democracy, as Thomas Jefferson warned his fellow Americans, “is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” History has since proved Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers right, many times over. Perhaps the most sobering proof that democracy is nothing more than mob rule surfaced in 1935, when an economically prosperous, culturally advanced Western European democracy enacted the infamous Nuremberg Laws, stripping away the rights of a defenseless minority.
Under a republic, on the other hand, there are very few “options for the nation’s future,” because under a republic, not everything goes. Under a republic “options for the nation’s future” are severely limited by the nation’s constitution. Under a constitutional republic, explicit constitutional constraints protect minorities and individuals from capricious mob passions.
For the record, the Constitution of the Republic of China, like the constitution of most nations, does not include the option of independence.
For the record, America’s Articles of Confederation do not include provisions for political independence either, for the simple reason that the several states were already sovereign and independent. Article II stipulates instead that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”
Modern Americans have forgotten that each of the states is technically a nation unto itself. We are reminded of this fact when state officials ritualistically refer to their state as the “sovereign state of Maryland” or the “sovereign state of Virginia.”
What modern Americans refer to as “America” or “the USA” is technically a confederation of independent states. Retaining pre-existing sovereignty and independence within a confederation such as these United States of America, is an entirely different matter from acquiring independence from a pre-existing unitary state such as China.
Tsai Huang-liang insists that “It is necessary that the choice be made by the people.”
Does Tsai Huang-liang not know that the choice was made by the people? The choice was made by the people in 1912, when the Constitution of the Republic of China was enacted, just as the choice was made by the American people in 1789, when the Constitution of the United States of America was enacted.
Unless the alternative under consideration is market anarchism, in which we are talking about a whole other ballgame, then the Constitution of the United States is a perfectly serviceable constitution. The fact that it is over 200 years old isn’t a problem. It merely needs to be honored instead of ignored. It isn’t a “living, breathing document” with “penumbras and emanations” that need to be “interpreted.” It’s written in English, not Chinese.
Sun Yat-sen is the George Washington of modern China. Sun modeled the Constitution of the Republic of China on the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution of the Republic of China is also a perfectly serviceable constitution. The fact that it is nearly 100 years old isn’t a problem either. It too merely needs to be honored instead of “amended” irresponsibly on an annual basis. The Constitution of the Republic of China is a One China Constitution. There is no Two Chinas Constitution. There is no One China, One Taiwan Constitution. It doesn’t need to be “interpreted.” It’s written in Chinese, not English.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that “[There are] fundamental differences between the KMT’s and the DPP’s approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy.”
Pan Blue Rebuttal: God, I hope so. I certainly hope there are “fundamental differences between the KMT’s and DPP’s approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy.” God forbid that the KMT’s approach to Taiwan’s future and to “democracy” bear any resemblance whatsoever to the DPP’s.
The KMT’s approach to the future of Taiwan is embodied in the Constitution of the Republic of China, which was authored by KMT party founder Sun Yat-sen. The Republic of China, or ROC, has democratic features, but it is not a democracy. It is, as its name implies, a republic. A republic is governed by its constitution.
According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, or ROC, Taiwan is a province of China. According to the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, or PRC, Taiwan is also a province of China. Both the ROC and PRC consider Taiwan a province of China.
Every one of the 25 nations that maintains diplomatic relations with the ROC government in Taipei considers Taiwan a province of China. Every one of the 165 nations that maintains diplomatic relations with the PRC government in Beijing considers Taiwan a province of China. The United Nations considers Taiwan a province of China. The whole world considers Taiwan a province of China. The KMT’s approach to the future of Taiwan respects both this undeniable political reality and the ROC Constitution.
The DPP’s approach to the future of Taiwan on the other hand, is reflected in its 1999 Resolution on Taiwan’s Future. The DPP’s Resolution on Taiwan’s Future asserts that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. Its current name is the Republic of China. It is neither a province nor a special administrative region of China.”
The DPP’s Resolution on Taiwan’s Future is what Chinese refer to as “zi qi, qi ren” or “self-deception, and deception of others.” It is a futile attempt by the DPP to convince themselves and the outside world that Taiwan is not an integral part of China.
Unfortunately, try as they might, DPP officials have never been able to convince even themselves that “The Republic of China is Taiwan, and Taiwan is the Republic of China.” They know “it just ain’t so,” and the knowledge sticks in their craw. That’s why they keep returning to previous, more extreme demands for a “Taiwanese Constitution” in 2006, and a formal declaration of Taiwan independence in 2008.
See: He Who tells a Lie
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that “[There is] an issue even more crucial … namely, how to implement a democratic mechanism that respects the public’s decision. Ma has not clearly said whether the people he talks about are the 23 million people of Taiwan, or if he includes the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The latter violates the first principle of democracy [ ! ] … The DPP’s longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan [by means of] a referendum on sovereignty … Ma … has no clear stance on this issue … [He] should declare … whether he thinks that the people of Taiwan should be allowed to decide their own future in a referendum.”
Pan Blue Rebuttal: What do Tsai and the DPP mean when they insist that “including the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait violates the first principle of democracy?” What kind of arrant nonsense is this? According to the constitutions of both the ROC government in Taipei and the PRC government in Beijing, the territory and populace on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of the same nation. By what right does a Quisling nomenklatura on one side of the Strait deny hundreds of millions of fellow citizens on the other side of the Strait the right to determine the future of their own nation?
What do Tsai and the DPP mean when they make the ringing declaration: “The DPP’s longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan [by means] of a referendum on sovereignty?” Who are “the people” they refer to? Are they all of the people, or just some of the people?
Do they mean the DPP has, unbeknownst to libertarians the world over, suddenly joined the ranks of principled and consistent champions of the Right to Self-Determination? Does the DPP now champion the right of everyone, not just themselves, to secede from whatever political entity they currently live under?
Do they mean the Quisling DPP regime’s “democratic” and “progressive” referendum on sovereignty will guarantee the right of others to secede from the DPP’s newly founded “Nation of Taiwan?”
Do they mean the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan’s Aborigines to secede from any future “Republic of Taiwan” and to establish their own “Kaosha Republic?”
Do they mean the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan’s Hakka minority to secede from any future “Republic of Taiwan” and to establish their own Hakka republic?
The Chinese province of Taiwan is divided into 23 counties. The KMT, NP, and PFP control 17 counties. The DPP controls only six counties. The northern and eastern two-thirds of Taiwan’s land area is under Pan Blue control.
Do Tsai and the DPP mean the DPP now champions the right of “Greater China” patriots to secede from any future “Republic of Taiwan” and to establish their own loyalist Chinese republic comprising the 17 Pan Blue controlled counties?
Not on your life.
What they mean is that the Quisling DPP regime will continue misusing Republic of China citizens’ hard-earned taxes for the next two years, indoctrinating Republic of China citizens into thinking of themselves as “Taiwanese, not Chinese.” At the end of that period, in 2008, they will provoke a military crisis, declare a “state of national emergency,” then stampede the public into rubberstamping formal independence in the name of an ersatz “Taiwanese patriotism.”
What they mean is that the Quisling DPP regime will magnanimously “permit” Republic of China citizens to participate in an elaborate charade to found a “Nation of Taiwan,” period. Loyal Republic of China citizens unhappy about suddenly and involuntarily transformed into “citizens of the Republic of Taiwan” will just have to lump it.
In short, the DPP’s Potemkin Referendum will ensure “independence for me, but not for thee.” It will ensure “secession for me, but not for thee.” It will ensure “self-determination for me, but not for thee.” This, the DPP apparently feels, does not “violate the first principle of democracy.” This, the DPP apparently feels, qualifies as “allowing the people of Taiwan to decide their own future in a referendum.”
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang maintains that “Prior to the public’s making a decision, all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions. In other words, there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment. Ma, however, still opposes their abolition in clear violation of his own declaration that the public’s decision will be respected. Finally, all groups must accept the results of a democratic and public decision … any decision made by the people of Taiwan in accordance with their own free will in a referendum will be accepted by the party. The question is whether the KMT would accept a public decision in favor of Taiwan’s independence or give in to China’s missile threat.”
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Tsai and the DPP insist that “all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions.”
If only they meant it. Unfortuntely, they don’t.
What do Tsai and the DPP actually mean? They mean that all options that enable them to get what they want should be open, and there should be no biases or conditions that prevent them from getting what they want. Taiwan independence Quislings are not champions of the Right to Self-Determination. Taiwan independence Quislings are champions of the Right to Self-Determination for Taiwan independence Quislings.
Tsai and the DPP assert that “there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment.”
Excuse me, but unless Tsai and the DPP are willing to forgo enacting an “Anti-Secession Law” of their own, unless they are willing to guarantee the right of others to secede from their “Nation of Taiwan,” at others’ and not their discretion, unless they are willing to forgo national unity and territorial integrity for their newly founded “Nation of Taiwan,” unless they are willing to see their own “Nation of Taiwan” disintegrate before their very eyes, then they had best shut their traps, cease their yammering about “no biases or conditions,” and stop pretending that they occupy the moral high ground on the issue of the Right to Self-Determination.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang concludes by saying that “The question of how to let the people of Taiwan decide the nation’s future in an unbiased manner and through a referendum may be more important than accepting Taiwanese independence as an option, and it may also be the question in more urgent need of a response from Ma.”
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Tsai’s statement is of course, far too myopic and narrow-minded.
The real question is how to let sovereign and independent individuals decide their own futures in an unbiased manner, whether through referenda or other means. This is far more important than accepting any collective’s demands for nation-building. And if truth be told, it is a question in far more urgent need of a response from Tsai Huang-liang than from Ma Ying-jeou.
Should Taiwan independence be an option?
No. Not if one has one iota of respect for Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law.
If the nations of the world wish to abide by traditional rules governing national sovereignty and territorial integrity, then patriotic Chinese on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland cannot be faulted for insisting that Taiwan independence is not an option, that Taiwan independence Quislings have no right to demand secession from China, and that the nations of the world must respect China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
If, on the other hand, the nations of the world are serious about phasing out constitutional republicanism, then let it be for the sake of something truly worthy, for market anarchism, and not for the Taiwan independence movement’s atavistic, race-based, petty tribalist “nation-building.”
March 7, 2006
Bevin Chu [send him mail] is an American architect of Chinese descent registered to practice in Texas. Currently living and working in Taiwan, Chu is the son of a retired high-ranking diplomat with the ROC (Taiwan) government. His column, “The Strait Scoop” is published on his website, The China Desk.