I have read an article, a speech delivered by Dr. David Plott (former editor-in-chief of the Far Eastern Economic Review), titled "Does Taiwan really matter? An outsider's view," which is posted on Michael Turton's blog. Following is my sum up of it and my personal opinions.
1. the summing up of Dr. Plott's speech
Taiwan has contributed so much to China's economy success that two sides are inter-depending on each other.
(The design, engineering, logistical, and supply-chain expertise of a lot of China's electronics and high-end technology exports owe their success to Taiwanese businesses…and therefore to the accumulation of China's own foreign reserves…that word[describing the relation] is “interdependence”…It is odd that some Taiwanese would focus on the word "dependence" to describe the relationship of Taiwan to China, because Taiwan's economy has long been "dependent" on other economies through trade and business and investment ties.)
Though it's possible that China will take drastic moves to damage Taiwan's economy, it will definitely hurt itself too.
(…souring its reputation with investors, businesses and governments elsewhere in the world. It would also undermine China's standing in multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization.)
By further economic integration between Taiwan and China, and China and the world, shared interests will emerge and the war is more unlikely to break out. That's why Taiwan matters.
(As the greatest experiment in economic integration the world has ever seen, the European Union, demonstrates, economic integration has a powerful effect on the perceptions of common interests among nations… One could argue just as forcefully that economically integrated countries seldom go to war against each other.)
Taiwan also matters because it serves as a successful model of "Asian/Chinese democracy," and is critical to the future of democracy in China.
(The deep roots that democracy has planted in Taiwan are an embarrassment to those on the mainland, or even in Hong Kong, who argue that democracy imperils economic progress or leads to instability. The success of democracy in Taiwan is absolutely critical to the future of democracy in China.)
However, the hijacking of "Taiwanese identity" by some politicians in Taiwan has put Taiwan and the world's interests and security in danger.
(China fears Taiwanese independence. And it will go to war to prevent it…what troubles me most about the issue of Taiwanese identity is how easily it can be exploited for domestic political gain…)
The expression of "Taiwanese identity" doesn't have to be independence, as the experience of EU has demonstrated.
(Has the emergence of the European Union effaced the identity of the French, the Germans, or the Italians? I would argue it has deepened their respective cultural identities, while at the same time layering them with a new, evolving European identity.)
The way out for Taiwan is to seek identity but not independence, and develop democracy but not polarization.
(There is nothing in the rich web of cultural, social and historical experiences that make up Taiwanese identity that require independence, so long as China does not seek reunification by force and at the expense of Taiwanese democracy…One of the greatest challenges all democracies face is the risk of polarization, the tendency of political divisions within society to tear democracy apart.)
2. My opinions about the speech
The "route map" for Taiwan provided by Dr. David Plott is like this: the threat of war Taiwan faces can be alleviated by integrating more with China's economy and putting aside issues about independence; the future of Taiwan can be assured by developing a successful democracy model of Asian and Chinese.
I have some critics about this route. First, the danger of integrating with China's economy doesn't only come from Beijing government's intension, but also from the uncertainty of China's economy. As what David said in his speech, its pension system, income gap, environment pollution, and banking system are all in a mess and post great risk to its economy growth. Now with such a high concentration of Taiwan's economy on China, a reasonable management and diversification is necessary and also make sense, even in terms of business SOP. Therefore, economy interdependence is a way to prevent war, but too much of it would also be a way to mutual destruction.
Second, although seeking independence would undermine cross-strait relations and thus post dangers to Taiwan, the voice of it cannot be muted. The logic is simple: as China wages its power to block Taiwan's participation in IGO and NGOs, declaring its ownership over Taiwan, and the trend of China fever is emerging around the world, what would be the perception of Taiwan in "outsider's" view? We don't have to put this issue so eagerly that makes Taiwan a "trouble maker" (though the real trouble maker is China), but we can't let the international community think people in Taiwan are willing to accept China's setting. Furthermore, if one day we have to negotiate with Beijing to strike a deal, without accumulating our bargains from now on (though it's a little bit frustrating, in the worst scenario independence might become a tool), what can we depend on besides an uncertain Washington?
The last point is about the effectiveness of a successful model of democracy for Taiwan's "autonomy." I totally agree that sound democracy would contribute to Taiwan's reputation and secure more support from international society, but doubt about its effect to Beijing government. If Taiwan's democracy exerts great pressure to CCP's legitimacy, will Beijing government welcome Taiwan? It would do everything it can to divide Taiwan's society to tear apart the democracy, the situation that Dr. Plott recommended people in Taiwan, not China, managed to avoid. The scenario in the minds of China leaders should be this: a unified China without democratic Taiwan is the best, a unified China with democratic Taiwan while Beijing government in charge of Taiwan the second. In short, even though Taiwan can maitain its democracy under China's adverse effort, Beijing will not allow Taipei to function the democracy by itself, since it post a challenge to CCP's ruling, as Dr. Plott said. I am not saying Taiwan's democracy is worthless, but to think Taiwan can preserve its autonomy under a unified China is kind of, forgive me, naive.
Above are my opinions, please feel free to share your view or point out my blindness.
Rado
1. the summing up of Dr. Plott's speech
Taiwan has contributed so much to China's economy success that two sides are inter-depending on each other.
(The design, engineering, logistical, and supply-chain expertise of a lot of China's electronics and high-end technology exports owe their success to Taiwanese businesses…and therefore to the accumulation of China's own foreign reserves…that word[describing the relation] is “interdependence”…It is odd that some Taiwanese would focus on the word "dependence" to describe the relationship of Taiwan to China, because Taiwan's economy has long been "dependent" on other economies through trade and business and investment ties.)
Though it's possible that China will take drastic moves to damage Taiwan's economy, it will definitely hurt itself too.
(…souring its reputation with investors, businesses and governments elsewhere in the world. It would also undermine China's standing in multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization.)
By further economic integration between Taiwan and China, and China and the world, shared interests will emerge and the war is more unlikely to break out. That's why Taiwan matters.
(As the greatest experiment in economic integration the world has ever seen, the European Union, demonstrates, economic integration has a powerful effect on the perceptions of common interests among nations… One could argue just as forcefully that economically integrated countries seldom go to war against each other.)
Taiwan also matters because it serves as a successful model of "Asian/Chinese democracy," and is critical to the future of democracy in China.
(The deep roots that democracy has planted in Taiwan are an embarrassment to those on the mainland, or even in Hong Kong, who argue that democracy imperils economic progress or leads to instability. The success of democracy in Taiwan is absolutely critical to the future of democracy in China.)
However, the hijacking of "Taiwanese identity" by some politicians in Taiwan has put Taiwan and the world's interests and security in danger.
(China fears Taiwanese independence. And it will go to war to prevent it…what troubles me most about the issue of Taiwanese identity is how easily it can be exploited for domestic political gain…)
The expression of "Taiwanese identity" doesn't have to be independence, as the experience of EU has demonstrated.
(Has the emergence of the European Union effaced the identity of the French, the Germans, or the Italians? I would argue it has deepened their respective cultural identities, while at the same time layering them with a new, evolving European identity.)
The way out for Taiwan is to seek identity but not independence, and develop democracy but not polarization.
(There is nothing in the rich web of cultural, social and historical experiences that make up Taiwanese identity that require independence, so long as China does not seek reunification by force and at the expense of Taiwanese democracy…One of the greatest challenges all democracies face is the risk of polarization, the tendency of political divisions within society to tear democracy apart.)
2. My opinions about the speech
The "route map" for Taiwan provided by Dr. David Plott is like this: the threat of war Taiwan faces can be alleviated by integrating more with China's economy and putting aside issues about independence; the future of Taiwan can be assured by developing a successful democracy model of Asian and Chinese.
I have some critics about this route. First, the danger of integrating with China's economy doesn't only come from Beijing government's intension, but also from the uncertainty of China's economy. As what David said in his speech, its pension system, income gap, environment pollution, and banking system are all in a mess and post great risk to its economy growth. Now with such a high concentration of Taiwan's economy on China, a reasonable management and diversification is necessary and also make sense, even in terms of business SOP. Therefore, economy interdependence is a way to prevent war, but too much of it would also be a way to mutual destruction.
Second, although seeking independence would undermine cross-strait relations and thus post dangers to Taiwan, the voice of it cannot be muted. The logic is simple: as China wages its power to block Taiwan's participation in IGO and NGOs, declaring its ownership over Taiwan, and the trend of China fever is emerging around the world, what would be the perception of Taiwan in "outsider's" view? We don't have to put this issue so eagerly that makes Taiwan a "trouble maker" (though the real trouble maker is China), but we can't let the international community think people in Taiwan are willing to accept China's setting. Furthermore, if one day we have to negotiate with Beijing to strike a deal, without accumulating our bargains from now on (though it's a little bit frustrating, in the worst scenario independence might become a tool), what can we depend on besides an uncertain Washington?
The last point is about the effectiveness of a successful model of democracy for Taiwan's "autonomy." I totally agree that sound democracy would contribute to Taiwan's reputation and secure more support from international society, but doubt about its effect to Beijing government. If Taiwan's democracy exerts great pressure to CCP's legitimacy, will Beijing government welcome Taiwan? It would do everything it can to divide Taiwan's society to tear apart the democracy, the situation that Dr. Plott recommended people in Taiwan, not China, managed to avoid. The scenario in the minds of China leaders should be this: a unified China without democratic Taiwan is the best, a unified China with democratic Taiwan while Beijing government in charge of Taiwan the second. In short, even though Taiwan can maitain its democracy under China's adverse effort, Beijing will not allow Taipei to function the democracy by itself, since it post a challenge to CCP's ruling, as Dr. Plott said. I am not saying Taiwan's democracy is worthless, but to think Taiwan can preserve its autonomy under a unified China is kind of, forgive me, naive.
Above are my opinions, please feel free to share your view or point out my blindness.
Rado
posted by e.chang at 10:48 PM
3 Comments:
The speech you quote is interesting, and I think it raises some points that are worth discussing. Your comments are all valid, of course—but in addition to raising objections, I think it would be good for you to analyze other parts of the speech that you think are more accurate.
I couldn't follow the first paragraph of your criticism. You conclude, "Therefore, ... too much [economic interdependence] would also be a way to mutual destruction." This may be the case, but there are two suppositions that you haven't supported: (1) that the "destruction" will be mutual (e.g. that Taiwanese investment will damage the Chinese economy); and (2) that China's economy will (not "might") collapse.
Regarding the second point, you have made some assertions about dangers in the Chinese economy, and not many people would argue with these—but you make it sound as if you've proven conclusively that China's economy is going to crash, and overinvestment in China will lead to Taiwan's "destruction."
For me, this undermines your entire argument. "Therefore" is a powerful word—what comes before it must lead directly and irrefutably to what comes after it. In general, I think it's a good idea to avoid such broad statements in a medium like this.
—Chris
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thank you, Chris! I didn't realize that the term I use has such an effect until your notice, and I think to tranfer "will" to "might" or avoid "therefore" unless a strong arguement is present is definitely better.
On the "mutual" destruction, the logic I implied is derived from Dr. Plott's speech: since the two sides are economically interdepedent,a disturbance to Taiwan's economy might also harm China's. But I have to admit there's no enough points to support this arguement. But frankly, I don't think mutual destruction has to come from economic interdependence, since most big cities along both sides of the strait might be the targets if a war break out.
I think the more interesting arguement that Plott raised is the relation between identity and statehood. He took EU for example, arguing that France and Italy didn't lose their identity in the sovereignty-alienation process. What makes it interesting is that it treat identity as emotional appealing and statehood as interest caculation, and we can preserve our identity while giveing up some part of statehood. The only question I want to raise is that the same logic can be aplied to Taiwan case? Personally, I think Taiwanese are capable to make it, but it might be more difficult because we are in the process of forming a concrete identity, not yet in the stage of preserving it.
-Rado
Post a Comment
<< Home