Talk #281

A casual reading of the Chinese history would suggest that there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that state's interest and that of the ordinary Chinese people are necessarily one of the same. In fact, a persuasive case can be made to the contrary. Since in the traditional Chinese culture, it is the responsibility for the educated to speak for the conscience of the society, let me attempt to take a stab at it.
From the time Confucism was seized by the emperors, and used to mold the Chinese culture and Chinese thinking for loyalty and obedience to the ruler, the fate of the ordinary Chinese suffered with little offsetting advantages. If one reads the Chinese history somewhat objectively putting aside our traditional Chinese ego, China, as a state, was repeatedly subjugated. It is perhaps even arguable that Tang was ruled by non-Han (it is my understanding that Lee Yuan or Emperor Tang Taizu was a general of a Turkic tribe). That aside, China was subjugated by the Mongols (Yuan Dynasty) and Manchus (Qin Dynasty). If it wasn't because of the Pearl Harbor attack, it may even be questionable that China could have come out of WWII whole. (I heard that Japan had a plan to move its Capitol to Beijing after conquerring China) If one argues that subjugation is a consequence of the decay of a political system which in turn is a product of the culture, then how can we explain the fact that Mongol conquest was at the time when Chinese Confucian culture was at its peak?

Accepting the fact that China was repeatedly subjugated by "foreigners" with rapidly shortening intervals, let us look at the fate of the educated or those who believe that loyalty to China is equal to loyalty to the ruler. Chinese history is full of stories about scholars and military officers committing suicide during the fall of a dynasty. But frequently ordinary Chinese were not spared. Remember the stories "Three Days in Yangzhou" and "Triple Jiating Slaughter" during the early days of subjugation to Manchus? Remember Nanking Massacre just sixty three years ago? Chinese history is a cyclic repetition of decaying imperial houses unable or unwilling to reform leading to their demise, and the people suffered at the hands of the take-over conquerers because their loyalty to the falling imperial house.
Yes, Chinese history has moments of glory such as the open society and prosperous economy during Tang Dynasty and militarily strong periods such as Han Dynasty, and some would even pride themselves for the conquest of Moscow by the Mongols (by the way, it is questionable if Han even converted or assimilated the Mongols into the Chinese culture). But during the inevitable dynastic demise, the ordinary Chinese suffered terribly. All the above may be attributed to ordinary Chinese holding loyalty to a falling dynasty, therefore by implication, had chosen to be hostile to the new rulers. But how about "Let Hundred Flower Bloom" Campaign of the '50 and the Cultural Revolution of the '60-70? There were many loyal CCP members, perhaps with a different thinking or view about what is good for CCP!

Now let us look at the time of subjugation. The educated Chinese are taught to think. We make our living by performing work and services using our training, some in educational institutions, some for the government and industries, and some freelance. What happened to those like us in recent history? A friend once told me that he was a college student in the occupied portion of China during WWII. After VJ, he was labelled as a "wei student". Countless educated were labelled "Hanjien" and some were executed because they chose to live their life under subjugation instead of joining the undergraound resistance. Many of you know that I am no friend of Japan and Japanese militarists and least of friends to those who inflicted harm on their fellow Chinese for their personal gain. But I can empathize with those ordinary educated Chinese who for one reason or another would rather live their lives than to die. After CCP took over in 1949, similar fate was conferred upon those who chose to live their life under Republic of China rule on the Mainland. How about the Cultural Revolution? The educated suffered immensely for their expression of discontent and what in their perceptions as wrong policies of the government . Even todate, CCP purges educated for their imperfect loyalty to the CCP party line. The educated Chinese are educated to think. Finding faults and suggesting remedies are their responsibility as educated. Writings, music and arts are their tools for expression. Yet, they are repeatedly persecuted simply because they stand on the wrong side of the political wind.
With this experience in mind, it should be quite understandable why some people may not be enthusiastic about unification. The Chinese state, as a manifestation of the dominant political culture of the last five thousand years has not shown its ability to revitalize itself and prevent its own decay and ultimate demise. History has taught us that at the time of its demise, we can count on no one, much less the state to offer us protection. Why loyal to unification? Like many Chinese, we treasure the thought of a unified, free, prosperous and strong China. But given the historical lessons, should we not talk about how to transform the Chinese state into one that can revitalize itself and have adequate mechanism to curb corruption and mishandling of national resources before we swear loyalty to the abstract concept of One China? Unless one means One China by CCP. Well that completes my circle.

If China cannot transform itself for whatever reasons, what is wrong with people who would rather take their fate into their own hands and establish their own political structure that is more likely capable of protecting them? In the end, some living examples of successful Chinese states, however small in scale, may serve as inspiration for other Chinese states. Like biodiversity, isn't political diversity equally sound as a model for the survive of our Chinese culture?

LESSONS FROM THE FIRST CHINESE UNIFICATION: SHORT-LIVED UNIFICATION WITHOUT POPULAR SUPPORT

Let us examine the first unification in Chinese history, namely the one by Qin Shihuang in (221 B.C.), and ask the question "What is to be gained or lost by the ordinary Chinese people in unification or status-quo".

The first unification was accomplished after some five hundred years of fragmentation (The Spring-Autumn Period 722-481 B.C. and The Warring States Period 403-221 B.C.). Undoubtedly, the pretext of ending people's suffering after years of wars and slaughters was a center-piece in Qin Shihuang's justification. But unification resulted in a short period of perhaps the most brutal rule (221-206 B.C.) in the Chinese history.

Compare to the scenario today. There is no war and people are not losing their lives and property to military conflict. To the contrary, Chinese people have had the opportunity to live in an unprecedented fifty year period of peace in the preceding two centuries, and of improvement of their economic lives, albeit only recent on the Mainland. The minimum reward Chinese people demand for supporting unification should be a measureable improvement of their status-quo personal welfare.

COOL IT: WAR OVER UNIFICATION WILL NOT BREAK OUT

Like they say, "it takes two to tango". It requires a trigger to start a war. In my humble observation, the whole issue is now moot because Ah Bian is already willing to talk about forming a commonwealth with Mainland. If unification and separate independence are the extremes of possible scenarios across the Strait, federation and commonwealth are just next to each other in the middle.

If Ah Bian were indeed intending on declaring independence, he should, as a free-lance advisor would suggest, do two things:

1. Concentrate for the next four years on cleaning up the political filth and corruption in Taiwan. In so doing, he will be able to claim credit for a cleaner, more efficient and economically prosperous Taiwan at his re-election campaign in 2004. It should help to raise his mandate or legitimacy from a meager 39% which he would need for the claim that he speaks for the wishes of Taiwan's people.
2. Open the three "tongs", i.e., telecommunications, shipping and postal exchange, and whatever else is needed to buy time with non-essential concessions. Non-essential from the point of view of independence, that is.

Instead of playing a calm game while avoiding confrontation, Ah Bian has already moved to commonwealth before 5/20, I would venture to predict that it won't take long before he'll agree to consider federation. There, Bingo. Taiwan will be become a part of PROC before the Twiwan-Independence types realize what is actually going on. Ah Bian's Commonwealth is like a home-grown Trojan Horse. They are probably still out there celebrating Ah Bian's victory! Without a trigger, the war will not break out. With Ah Bian's Trojan Horse, unification will become reality before PLA has time to mobilize for "liberation".