20040304
=======
Nation’s intentions on March 4, 2004 ……
No one can deny nation's intentions
`Pan-blue politicians are playing an ugly game which will be remembered by researchers and historians.'
By Stephane Corcuff
Before going back to France tonight, I would like to share a few simple ideas with my Taiwanese friends. On this trip to Taiwan, during the past five days, I attended the Kaohsiung symposium "Light Wind, Warm Sun -- The Love for Taiwan," participated in a political rally in Tainan and discussed and exchanged some ideas with other people on TV, with common people, with citizens attending political manifestations, taxi drivers and many different other friends. I attended, in Miaoli, the historic "Hand-in-Hand Rally" on Feb. 28. All this made me very excited about Taiwanese democracy, which grows richer every year. On Feb. 29, I also had the honor of attending the first two debates organized by the Chinese Television Station on the referendum issue.
I am not Chinese, I am not Hakka, I am not Hoklo, I am not an Aboriginal, I am not a "New Inhabitant" -- I am simply French. And in spite of the fact that I have been to Taiwan every three weeks in recent months to discuss with you many issues on TV programs and other forums, just because I live abroad, I often interact with foreign officials, diplomats, academics and media outside Taiwan. So I'd like to compare the way the debate is going on in Taiwan and the way foreign people see the referendum issue abroad.
Many people in Taiwan think that America
is against the referendum and that France is also against the referendum. But
what is "America?" And what is "France?" America and France
are not summarized by their presidents. There are also national and local
media, and of course, the people. Presidents do not necessary understand
everything, and in post-modern and democratic societies, the situation is far
more complex than what you presume when you think: "France condemned
us" or "America is ambiguous in its support."
Because I am what you call a "foreigner," I will comment on the referendum issue first from a foreigner's points of view. I am very lucky to be able to teach in Paris a course on the theories of identity and the geopolitics of the Taiwan Strait, so let's discuss from a geopolitical point of view the current missile crisis in the Taiwan Strait. I dare to use this expression, and regret that media abroad and diplomats far from the Taiwanese reality often turn a blind eye to this and would not even consider that what is happening now is a mounting crisis.
If Russia was targeting missiles at one Baltic state, everyone would view it this way. But this does not happen in the case of Taiwan. On the contrary: Taiwanese are described as "troublemakers." This situation is, however, simple: there is a menacing country and there is a country being menaced. Even my pan-blue friends recognize they cannot go against such a starting point in the analysis. And after French President Jacques Chirac condemned Taiwan's referendum, many if not all of the national media in France criticized him strongly for bowing to Chinese pressure to the point of making a blatant mistake in geopolitical appreciation. Some stated clearly that Taiwan was an endangered state and that it was truly shocking that we wanted to end the ban on weapons sales to the country that is menacing a democratic Taiwan.
So if the people of a country being menaced militarily rises up to say clearly they oppose the Chinese missile threat, what on earth can be said against that? How is it possible that political realism becomes so unrealistic and leaves no space for morality? Ask this question to common people abroad and you'll see whether they think Taiwan's attitude is difficult to understand.
And still, there are people within Taiwan who are against the defensive referendum, even though the menace is clear and even if a referendum is the best tool of direct democracy invented to correct excesses of representative democracy. For common people abroad who are not well-versed in the complexity of identity politics in Taiwan, such an opposition is absolutely incomprehensible. And for many diplomats, it shows that Taiwan does not want independence. Which, stated in such a simple way, is genuine ignorance.
How can we interpret the fact that some people oppose the referendum? I am afraid the answer is simple. The large quarrel that has surrounded the defensive referendum in Taiwan would not be appreciated abroad, as it comes from the central pivot and distinctive feature of Taiwanese politics. Not the ethnic division, not even the debate about changing the country's name or promoting unification, but the division between Chinese consciousness and Taiwanese consciousness within Taiwanese society. In the end, it is this conflict that rules the whole political debate from behind the scenes.
Many people consider that Taiwanese consciousness is now the strongest, stronger than the formerly all-powerful Chinese consciousness. I believe this is wrong and my observations all through the 1990s reforms and change in national identity indicate to me that Taiwanese consciousness is still finding a very hard time to make its way into society, as it should be entitled to. And this, even in central and southern Taiwan, at least among the middle class. To know that, you must discuss with people from both sides, share their life and not only listen to a few politicians or a few scholars.
The remaining influence of Chinese consciousness on Taiwanese minds is even more striking. And this, for me, explains for a great part why some in Taiwan fight against such a referendum. It can also explain what appears as the tragic weakness of their arguments. Just one example: Some people tell me: "Weapons purchase is a complex matter, we the common people do not understand, this referendum is useless, it is just to make political noise, it is so boring! Just let the government decide!" But they are, in a way, perfectly contradictory. If they oppose the issue, remember some do support it.
And if, on such a complex matter that has to align with national security, there are so many pros and cons, then how is it possible to imagine leaving the government taking a decision without consulting the people? The reality is that the pan-blue camp politicians see (rightly) in it a new step forward in the democratic process that threatens to ruin the illusions of a unified China. The process has been continuous throughout the 1990s: they cannot or dare not oppose any more democracy in principle (even though many did, and this to a very late date), but when democracy unfolds to the point that it starts to endanger their stance on national identity, then their support for democracy becomes extremely fragile.
From a political science point of view, this is a logical, but dangerous, reaction within the pan-blue camp. It is a consequence of the division between Chinese consciousness and Taiwanese consciousness within Taiwan which does not fit the ethnic divisions.
If we look at those abroad who oppose the referendum, we may remark easily that they are precisely the ones who say "Those Taiwanese are so annoying," every time Taiwan dares to explore further an international status quo that is fundamentally unfair to the nation. And they are the same as those who refuse, on inexplicable grounds, to consider that Taiwanese people's identification with Taiwan as natural, logical, acceptable and perfectly legitimate.
Can the Taiwanese people accept that? I know the answer. So the next question is now to those in Taiwan who oppose the referendum: Can you show any difference to them in your way of thinking, from the starting point of your argument, on the question of knowing whether it is legitimate to consider Taiwan as one's own nation?
In the political debate in Taiwan, there is an intense war of words, with politicians often wandering far from the main point when debating, using personal attacks and petty arguments which do not bring anything at all to the intellectual debate. People often forget the main division lines, like the conflict between Chinese consciousness and Taiwanese consciousness.
And thus people forget that first making clear the starting point of their opponent's argumentation helps a lot to get straight to the point, to save everyone's time and to understand that, in fact, the political debate in Taiwan runs along a very simple division line. As I suggested above, this is not the ethnic division, not even the debate about changing the country's name or promoting unification, but the division between Chinese consciousness and Taiwanese consciousness. You just need to know one's position on this to deduct one's likely position on every major political decision in Taiwan.
And if I am not wrong when I say that the central division line is between Chinese consciousness and Taiwanese consciousness, it means that the peace referendum is a also question about Taiwan's Chinese and Taiwanese consciousness. People who deeply love Taiwan and who strongly identify with Taiwan do not oppose this referendum. Pan-blue politicians who claim on all TV programs that they love Taiwan, too, cannot decently oppose this referendum and should stop blurring people's minds: Taiwan is being threatened and foreign politicians do not care. This is the sad reality. The 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally and the referendum are the only tools available for Taiwan to try to convince the world that it is not illegitimate to refuse unification by force.
Pan-blue politicians are playing an ugly game which will be remembered by researchers and historians. Opposing the peace referendum is nothing else than opposing Taiwan. My statement might appear very strong, but I endorse it fully and unequivocally.
Last Saturday, I attended the historic 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally (to protect Taiwan) with President Chen Shui-bian and former president Lee Teng-hui. It is gratifying to see how successful it has been. We'll never know how many people have attended, since in addition to those who had officially registered to attend, large crowds gathered spontaneously. It is not impossible that 3 million people were present! Let's now hope that the world will not ignore this major event. On Saturday Taiwan again met history and the appointment Formosa had was with the nation's own fate. Taiwan should now be safer, because the so-called "realism" of international politics have limits, too. Who will now dare attack without risking huge reprobation from media and people? Who will now be able to deny, as the ministry of foreign affairs of my country did when Chinese President Hu Jintao was in France, that anyone in Taiwan is longing for independence? Who will now be able to deny that the Taiwanese people's identification to Taiwan is legitimate? Congratulations, Taiwan: You've made it.
Stephane Corcuff, a French political scientist specializing in identity politics in Taiwan, has recently authored the book Light Wind, Warm Sun -- Taiwan's Mainlanders and the Transition of National Identity, published in Taipei by Asian Culture in January.
-----------------------------------------
On March 4, 2004 ……
-----------------------------------------
On March 4, 2004 ……
KMT plan would lead to nation's slaughter
By Parris Chang
The performance of a country's national defense is very much determined by its military force structure, so the issue should be treated seriously rather than as a campaign slogan. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan, however, has manipulated the issue as a campaign tactic. He promised to shorten compulsory military service to three months to win over young voters. It is an act that totally disregards national security.
Improper planning will lead to two consequences. One, national defense resources will be spent on personnel and weapons that a country's cannot afford. Two, an insufficient force will be unable to provide adequate defense for a country, thus turning a war into a slaughtering of its own nationals.
To decide on the size of the military force, the country's strategic environment, potential threats and defense resources must be taken into account. Other factors, such as human resources and financial growth, also need to be considered. Has Lien considered these issues?
According to President Chen Shui-bian, "The government is working toward an enlistment system. Yet the objective cannot be reached in one or two years' time. Shortening military service abruptly without providing supporting measures is irresponsible since it brushes aside concern for national security."
The military must be streamlined first. Since taking office, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration has put forward a streamlining program that aims to gradually reduce the country's dependence on the draft. The program was formulated based on an assessment by the Ministry of National Defense. The assessment looked at the threat posed by enemies, strategic considerations, defense resources as well as weapons and equipment available. It was estimated that by 2006, the number of soldiers will be reduced to 340,000, and to 300,000 by 2012. Given current progress, the objective of reducing the military to a reasonable size and structure can be reached ahead of schedule.
A retired general, a KMT member, once said that with the increasing use of high-tech equipment, soldiers need to be better trained and that the DPP's plan to shorten military service to one year and 10 months does not help. He criticized the DPP for maintaining the draft while letting the force degenerate. If what he said is true, isn't the KMT's proposal to shorten the service to three months even more worrisome?
As ministry officials pointed out, upon recruitment, a rookie has to go through four kinds of training: basic, professional, combined and combat. These programs take at least half a year. Since future warfare will rely more on high technology, training will become more complicated and time-consuming. What Lien proposes is simply playing with fire.
Some may argue that as future battles are determined by high-tech weapons, only a few soldiers will be needed. Well, let's look at the US military's attack on Iraq last year. Although the US enjoyed absolute control over the sky by detonating more than 15,000 smart weapons, the launching of ground operations was inevitable.
Does the KMT think that Taiwan's high-tech weapons are more powerful than those of the US and that we don't need ground troops at all? Or does the party think that a miracle will save the country from its enemies?
As the birth rate continues to drop and young people shun careers in the military, the proportion of enlisted soldiers must increase. Before shortening military service, the military structure needs to be improved. Inadequate forces and equipment need to be done away with. Otherwise, it is not only a joke but amounts to pushing people into slaughterhouses.
Parris Chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
-----------------------------------------
On March 4, 2004 ……
Blue camp shows its hypocrisy
Using their dominance in the legislature, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) on Tuesday forced the legislature's Procedure Committee to pass a draft amendment to Article 17 of the Referendum Law. The draft would shift the power to approve a defensive referendum from the president to the Legislative Yuan.
To protest the KMT and PFP legislators' attempt to expand the legislature's power, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) walked out of the committee meeting. Presidential Office officials said the draft would turn the "bird cage" referendum law into an "iron cage" law.
Proposed by KMT Legislator Kao Yu-jen, the amendment specifies that an emergency decree must be issued and approved by the Legislative Yuan before a defensive referendum can be held. The president would have to issue an emergency decree before holding a defensive referendum and the decree would have to be approved by the legislature within 10 days of its being issued.
The legislature has become a constitutional monster since the abolishment of the National Assembly. That is why the pan-green camp has moved several times to halve the number of legislative seats, yet the move has been blocked by pan-blue legislators.
With the KMT and the PFP trying to boost their power by placing all referendum powers in the hands of the legislature, they are openly trampling on Taiwan's democratic reform.
They claim they are proposing the amendment in order to highlight the illegality of President Chen Shui-bian's March 20 referendum. It's ironic that while they are accusing Chen of using the referendum to attract votes, Lien on Tuesday launched a signature drive to gather support for a year-end referendum on the integration of Taipei County, Taipei City and Keelung City.
If, as the blue camp claims, Chen's defensive referendum really is a matter of campaign manipulation aimed at attracting votes by playing to voters' Taiwan awareness, then the blue camp's referendum plan is even more of an attempt at manipulation designed to win votes from Taipei and Keelung. The blue camp knows it is weak in southern Taiwan. Its leaders are therefore trying to establish a power base in northern Taiwan. They explain their campaign manipulation by saying that the integration referendum movement has been initiated by the public and thus is a legal referendum.
In view of the KMT's and the PFP's
behavior, voters do not know what to say. Regardless, even the KMT-PFP alliance
wants to launch a referendum. Although the referendum issues are different, and
though they are proposed by different political camps, it shows that
referendums have already become a constitutional mechanism widely accepted by
both government and the opposition. This is a significant victory in the
development of Taiwan's constitutional reform, and means that there is no
turning back on the issue of referendums.
Regardless of whether voters support the integration of Taipei City, Taipei County, and Keelung City, we are pleased to see that the KMT and the PFP are proceeding with their plan in accordance with the Referendum Law. This newspaper's pro-referendum stance does not change as referendum initiators change.
Nevertheless, we have to alert readers and ask them to condemn the blue camp's hypocritical position on the referendum issue. On the one hand, they cook up charges against Chen's referendum. On the other hand, they plan to hold a referendum to attract votes. Let us hope readers can see through this.
-----------------------------------------
On March 4, 2004 ……
A-bian's alright
A supporter for President Chen Shui-bian, with Chen's doll on his head, gives the thumbs-up at the Da-an Forest Park in Taipei last night, where the Democratic Progressive Party organized a campaign activity targeting the Hakka population.
-----------------------------------------