Posted on 08/13/2002 3:06:51 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
There have been many reactions in Taiwan to President Chen Shui-bian's (³¯¤ô«ó) "one country on each side" statement and the fact that he is not opposed to a referendum on Taiwan's future. One came from Formosa Plastics Group (¥x¶ì¶°¹Î) chairman Wang Yung-ching (¤ý¥Ã¼y) who said, "A national leader should be understanding and forgiving of the people and treat them as his own children. He has to be patient and must not speak ill-intended words that may hurt the economy and business enterprises."
At first, this sounds reasonable, since for the last decade, Taiwan has been used to this kind of self-reflection and self-restraint. However, this attitude reflects a kind of self-suppression and psychological abuse. China has been bullying Taiwan for several decades, threatening armed invasion. This is not just empty talk -- the number of missiles along China's southeastern coast is increasing. China has said that Taiwan must rein in its horses at the brink of the edge, or meet with disaster. Such talk naturally makes the people of Taiwan nervous.
Taiwan's biggest problem in the cross strait relationship seems to be that we are brave while fighting lambs at home but blind to the wolves on our doorstep. PFP Chairman James Soong (§º·¡·ì), for instance, is doing even more than Wang to stir up the emotions of the Taiwanese. He acts as if he were a prophet, claiming that "the nation is on the verge of a major disaster."
If it were to be the kind of disaster of which the PFP is talking, with a declining stock market and leaking foreign capital, then Soong's words would themselves contribute to the disaster. His alarmist talk will break down the confidence of the people and upset foreign investors, adding to the stock market's woes.
Using research carried out by a KMT think tank, Su Chi (Ĭ°_), chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council during the KMT era, has concluded that former president Lee Teng-hui's (§õµn½÷) "special state-to-state" approach, the DPP's 1999 resolution on Taiwan's future and the Taiwan independence clause in the DPP's party charter all say the same thing. How the state-to-state model can be equated with the other two is beyond me, but the resolution places the right to decide Taiwan's future in the hands of the entire people of Taiwan.
But it doesn't go without saying that they will choose independence and the establishment of a new nation. It is also quite conceivable that they will identify with a future united China, and that is very different from the Taiwan Independence Clause. Su's "think tank" seems to use its intelligence only to serve political ends.
Several polls show that the people don't agree with all the arguing on the issue. Over 50 percent approve of the "one country on each side" model and 60 percent approve of deciding Taiwan's future through a referendum. And according to a TVBS poll, a majority would choose independence over unificiation if asked to choose between the two. This shows that the people of Taiwan demand the right to choose their way of life.
The less the outside world treats Taiwan as a nation, the more the people dig in their heels in protest. Taiwanese are pragmatic and they will not say they are not afraid of dying. A mighty armed force may certainly sweep away the obstacles to unification, but how difficult would it be for China to take over a Taiwan filled with hatred for everything it stands for?
People who complain that no goodwill is extended to China should listen carefully to the people of Taiwan and then take a step back to stand on Taiwan's side against China. Beijing's authoritarianism and violence will definitely be enough to fill them with righteous indignation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.