As all of our minions of loyal readers know, The Hungry Donkey is basically a place for a couple of jackasses to talk about stuffing their faces. But once in a while, after a good feed, our donkey minds drift away from the topic of food and we ponder the larger state of the universe. In this, the first installment of "The Erudite Donkey", the subject of Taiwan’s relationship to Mainland China is discussed and contrasted with the relationship between Britain and its former North American colonies. The differences between these two historical relationships sheds much light on the current state of Taiwan-China relations.
For those of us foreigners who have grown deep roots in Taiwan, there is little question on the issue of China’s claim to this island. There is essentially unanimous agreement that Taiwan is a sovereign country that should unquestionably be recognized as such by China and the world. For more than a century, it has been completely removed from Mainland rule, first as a colony of Japan, and then as an independently governed entity. It has grown into a relatively well-functioning democracy with a fully independent government. It maintains its own military, postal service, educational system, health care system, and any and all of the other social, economic, and cultural departments of government that could be argued to be definitive of an independent nation. China’s claim to Taiwan could be likened to Britain suddenly laying claim to Canada, Australia, or the United States. To most, such a claim would enter into the absurd.
The Taiwanese that I know personally will echo these sentiments; but with the added underlying emotion that comes with having one’s own political, economic, and cultural freedom threatened. They are the one’s who must endure the humiliations of being denied official embassies, excluded from all international organizations, and forced to compete in international sporting events under the moniker of “Chinese Taipei”. How then is it possible that a decidedly pro-China political party like the Guomindang (KMT) gets elected? How is it possible that a Taiwanese diplomat, in an anonymous internet posting, calls for the repression of the ‘Taibazi’ (Taiwanese hicks) to facilitate smoother relations with China.
There is a hidden but powerful pro-China faction in Taiwan. It is almost never openly articulated. It must be read between the lines, primarily in the policies and statements of the KMT. The candor of the diplomat mentioned above, proved a rare exception but he has tellingly since been removed from his post. Even though one can feel the government moving towards a closer relationship with the mainland, it is still unacceptable to openly state a belief in reunification. But more to the point, why does this faction exist?
It is easy to write it off as simple self-preservation—as choosing the concrete practicalities of economic and political stability over the more abstract principals of sovereignty and self-determination. But this pat explanation fails to shed light on the complexity of the situation. It is very difficult for North Americans of European decent to understand what it means to be Chinese. We come from a society of mixed descent, where the majority of people have, to a large extent, severed ties with the histories and cultures of our various ethnic origins. One of my grandfathers came to Canada from England and the other from Ukraine, but for me this is largely an historical curiosity. My grandfathers left their cultural histories behind when they came to Canada. Their children where raised as Canadians, and in my family, our ethnic origin was never discussed as a topic of great importance. I identify myself, almost solely as an expatriate Canadian.
The rapid divorce between Europe and its North American colonies was able to happen for a number of reasons. These include the great distance between the continents, the large mix of cultures represented, the primarily poor and agrarian origin of the settlers, and the great size and bounty of the new world. As well, the close proximity and inter-familiarity of European cultures led to a pan-European sense of values and identity. This facilitated a relatively rapid integration amongst its former members.
If one considers Taiwan, almost none of these conditions exist for the formation of a truly new culture. With the exception of the Aboriginal population, Taiwan is comprised almost solely of people of Chinese origin. It is a tiny island, which sits only a stone’s throw away from the mainland. Complicating matters further, political and economic power here has, since the 1950s, been primarily controlled by the KMT. In contrast to the mix of poor peasants who settled North America, the KMT, led by Generalisimo Chiang Kai Shek, ruled all of China in the early part of the century. They continued to be recognized as the rightful rulers of China until 1972 when Nixon visited Beijing and established diplomatic relations with Chairman Mao Tse Tung. The KMT was never interested in declaring the independence of Taiwan. Until recently, they were interested primarily in wresting power of the mainland from the Communists. For the KMT, Taiwan was never home, but rather a place of exile.
It is telling that amongst those Taiwanese who abhor the idea of reunification, many support the labeling of Taiwan and the Mainland as ‘Two Chinas’. Why Two Chinas? I often wondered. Why not simply ‘China and Taiwan’? During a recent trip to Beijing with a contingent of students and professors from the Landscape Architecture departments of Taiwan’s universities, my understanding of this idea of two Chinas became clearer.
I was very fortunate to be invited on this inaugural program of academic exchange. Not only was I able to tour the numerous historical sites in Beijing with some of the world’s experts on Chinese architecture, I also listened to presentations related to landscape architecture by professors from both Taiwan and Beijing. Despite being exhausted by my attempt to understand hour after hour of academic Chinese, I gained much from the experience. The subject matter of almost all of the Taiwanese presentations related somehow to the history of Chinese thought and culture. One presenter discussed the architectural descriptions in the classic The Dream of the Red Chamber, another discussed the legitimacy of feng shui as a design tool, another discussed the influence of European landscape design on Chinese landscape design throughout history. The further one attempts to understand how things are now, the further one must go back into history. So to discuss the meaning of Taiwanese design and culture, one must inevitably go back to China. ‘Five thousand years of history’ is a phrase that is often heard in both China and Taiwan. I used to consider this phrase a fetishization of history that distracted from the failures of modern Chinese culture; or as a hollow legitimization for the unyielding policies of the Chinese Communist Party towards Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang. But participating in this exchange helped me to realize that five thousand years of history, is much more than a slogan, it is an inescapable reality. For better or worse, Taiwan is encompassed by this history.
I will never become a supporter of the KMT and my views on the rightful sovereignty of Taiwan will never change, but this trip helped me to realize the necessity of opening up as many lines of communication as possible with the mainland. Taiwan may be ahead of China in many areas, but Taiwan is small and in order to grow it must participate in open academic discussion with Chinese thinkers. Taiwan and China are culturally different but they share the same history. The free exchange of ideas can only benefit both sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment