PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE: TWO COUNTRIES, TWO SYSTEMS ¢w¢w¢w The fundamental view of the Taiwan people regarding the relationship between Taiwan and China Foreword I. History of Sino-Taiwanese Relations II. The Intrinsically Colonial KMT Regime III. The KMT Should Take Full Responsibility for Its Diplomatic Failure IV. Our Vehement Objection to China's "Basic Guidelines" Regarding Taiwan V. Taiwan's Status According to International Law VI. Crisis Engendered by The Economic Activities across the Straits VII. Democratic Independence: The Only Hope for Taiwan VIII. Taiwan Is Qualified for Membership of The International Community Conclusion Co-signers Taiwan Association of University Professors Medical Professionals Alliance in Taiwan Union of Taiwanese Teachers Taiwan Labour Front Progressive Women's League Alliance for Farmers' Rights in Taiwan Taiwan Kian-Kok College Institute of New Congress The Buddhas Association The Presbyterian Church in Taiwan Christians for Taiwan Independence and Security Taiwanese Catholic Human-Rights Group Taiwan Pen The 228 Victims' Families Association for Peace Formosa Political Sufferers Care Foundation Taiwan Association for Human Rights Taiwan Congressional Office Alliance for the Reconstruction of Taiwan Taiwan Environmental Protection Union Association for Plebiscite in Taiwan Taiwan Hakka Association for Public Affairs Goa-Seng-Lang Association for Taiwan Independence Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines Taiwan Human Resources Development Center December 10, 1993 Foreword The raison d'etre of a government is to provide and guarantee liberty, equality, and welfare to its people. The principle of "self-determination" has long been recognized by the civilized world as a fundamental idea of democracy. On December 16, 1966, the United Nations passed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and International Covenant on Economic, Social and cultural Rights. Article I of the resolutions proclaims that all people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. For centuries, Taiwan has been ruled by alien regimes. Modern Taiwanese history is a chronicle of the Taiwanese' struggles against oppression and fight for independent survival. Since 1945, Taiwan under the Kuomintang (KMT) regime has been subject to the threat of China's invasion. Even though recently the tensions across the Straits of Taiwan has loosened gradually, to Taiwanese, the unification policy stressed by both the KMT regime and the Chinese government still poses a grave danger of a forced and forcible merger with China. On August 31, 1993, the People's Republic of China (PRC) issued a document titled, "The Taiwan Question and the Reunification of China." Circulating in seven languages, this diplomatic white paper manifested its intent and ambition of annexing Taiwan through its distortion of history, misconstruction of international law and treaties, and disregard for the will and welfare of the Taiwanese. Though less dogmatic and more pragmatic than before, the KMT's response remains ambiguous and problematic: the KMT still insists that the Communist regime cannot legitimately represent China, while emphasizing its own capability of resolving this "Chinese problem" eventually. Under such circumstances, we think it necessary to explicate our point of view from the perspective of the Taiwanese. I. History of Sino-Taiwanese Relations Situated in the west Pacific, the island of Taiwan was originally inhabited by the Austronesians. These aborigines, like those spread across the Pacific and Indian Oceans, mainly lived by fishing, hunting, and slash-and-burn agriculture. Their life style was distinctly different from that of the Fukienese across the Straits of Taiwan. In the mid-sixteenth century, a little after the beginning of the European imperialist expansion, some inhabitants along the southeastern coast of the Chinese Empire started to emigrate. In contrast with the European case, these Chinese immigrants took leave due to the hardships and poverty in their homeland. Thus, those who immigrated to Taiwan during the time, not of a significant number, were indigents pirating on the high seas or engaging in trade with the Japanese. In 1624, the Dutch East India Company occupied the Bay of Daiwan located in the southwestern coast of Taiwan and made it a Dutch entrep{SYMBOL 244 \f "Times New Roman"}t in East Asia. During the Dutch occupation, Dutch missionaries preached Christianity to the inhabitants of the plains area in southern Taiwan. The Dutch developed colonial plantations in Taiwan. To keep up with the exportation of sugar to the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, they also recruited laborers from the Chinese Fukien Province to work on the sugar plantation. At the end of the Dutch colonial period, there were about a hundred thousand Chinese plantation workers on Taiwan. In the PRC's white paper, great efforts were made to illustrate how historically Taiwan had been part of China. Nevertheless, it is greatly misleading to equate the Pescadores with Taiwan: administrative connections between the continental regimes and the Pescadores during the Sung, Yuan, and Ming Dynasties were not tantamount to the relation between the mainland regimes and Taiwan. In fact, the rulers of the mainland had ignored the existence of Taiwan completely; even until the seventeenth century, the jurisdiction of the Ming Empire covered only the Pescadores while excluding Taiwan. That is why the official chronicle of the Ming Dynasty stated that Taiwan was "the Mountain of Keelung according to foreign legend." In the Chronicle of Yung-cheng of the Ching Dynasty (Yung-cheng Shih Lu), it recorded an imperial paper of 1722 stating that, "Taiwan, historically not part of China, was conquered and became Ching's territory under the great power of Kang-hsi." This statement should be compelling enough to refute the PRC's claim of China's "historic ownership" of Taiwan. In 1662, Cheng Ch'eng-Kung (Koxinga) expelled the Dutch and took over Taiwan. Taiwan was ruled by three generations of Cheng over the subsequent twenty-one years, thus marking the beginning of political regimes by people from China. Admiral Shih Lang led the Ching's troops and defeated Cheng's army in Taiwan in 1683. Following was a heated debate as to whether or not to annex Taiwan to the Ching Empire. The Ching government founded a metropolis and three counties (yi fu san hsien) in Taiwan the next year under the Special Military Command of Tai-hsiah (Taiwan-Amoy). This was the first direct political tie between China and Taiwan. Until the Ching Empire ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1894, Taiwan did undergo two hundred and ten years of Chinese rule. However, Taiwan's experience during those two centuries was distinctive. Since Cheng Ch'eng Kung was waving the "anti-Ching, restoring-Ming" (fan Ching fu Ming) banner in Taiwan, the Ching imperial court had developed a persisting hostility towards Taiwan as a result. It also prohibited the crossing of the Taiwan Straits to prevent Taiwan from becoming an asylum for political dissenter. Meanwhile, there remained a consciousness of resistance among the local Taiwanese: at least forty uprisings took place and twenty of them succeeded in warding off Ching's troops from Taiwan temporarily. The banning of strait-crossing continued for around one hundred and ninety years until its abolishment in 1875: During those years, the Han who immigrated to Taiwan risked their lives to sneak on shore. They not only were in the constant fear of being arrested, but also had to desert their families in China while persevering in the hardships of pioneering. All in all, this prohibition policy stalled the development of Taiwan and affected Taiwanese' attitude towards China later on. In the mid-nineteenth century, the second wave of imperialism hit East Asia. Taiwan was again a juicy piece of meat in the international market. The British, the Japanese, and the French had initiated military actions on the island whereas the United States and Germany both attempted to occupy it. In the year of 1895, the Ching government ceded Taiwan to Japan after its defeat in the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria. Over the subsequent fifty years, the Japanese ruled Taiwan in a highly authoritarian and oppressive manner. Later, they even involved Taiwan in their imperialist expansion. Under the Japanese colonial reign, both military and unarmed resistance movements persisted. Although these movements took place partly under the influence of the Chinese notion of "revolution for the founding of a new dynasty," the main reason for their occurrence should be largely attributed to the idea of defending one's homeland, Taiwan. The pursuit for liberation or the goal of democracy under the colonial rule sprouted from circumstances vastly different from China in the early twentieth century. Between the years 1928 and 1931, Taiwanese communists brought forth a declaration of Taiwanese independence. Meanwhile, the May 5 Draft of Constitution by the Nanking government of China in 1936 precluded Taiwan from the status of a province or as an occupied territory. As a matter of fact, both the KMT and the Communist Party had made public statements in support of Taiwan's independence. On the other hand, the fifty years of de facto Japanese rule had made an immense impact on Taiwan. Established was an islandwide, efficient bureaucracy. Modern education substituted traditional superstition. The level of life in Taiwan was much higher compared with that in the warring China. Ties with China were mostly cut off during this colonial period as the Japanese advocated Shinto, the Japanese-language movement, and the military-volunteer movement. All these factors contributed to the differentiating of Taiwan from China and the forming of the reality of a nation on Taiwan. By and large, Japan failed in its attempt to "Japanize" the Taiwanese and yet it successfully transformed the Taiwanese into the "non-Chinese." When World War II ended in 1945, the defeated Japanese left Taiwan. Taiwan came under the Chinese reign once again. However, history had created an unfathomable discrepancy between China and Taiwan. Consequently, an uprising known as the "228 Incident" erupted in 1947 and resulted in numerous deaths of Taiwanese ¡Ð a traumatic tragedy resulting from a forced unification. II. The Intrinsically Colonial KMT Regime After the conclusion of World War ¢º, the Taiwanese went from a colony of a foreign people to that of the same extraction. Because of the illusion of a "mother country," Taiwanese embraced and welcomed the Chinese troops wholeheartedly despite the slight disappointment at the shabby clothes and undisciplined conduct of the Chinese army. On the other hand, these Chinese did not consider Taiwanese their compatriots. Instead, they thought of themselves as victors in a conquered land, successors to the Japanese viceroy. They took on not only the colonial measures of economic exploitation but also all sorts of legislation that discriminated against the Taiwanese. Completely surprised by such unequal treatment, the Taiwanese felt disenchanted and shocked as their naive conception of the "mother country" proved utterly wrong. This disillusionment eventually led to the tragic 228 Massacre. In essence, the 228 Massacre was quite similar to massacres in the early Japanese colonial rule for the fact that they all resulted from the colonizers' attempt to suppress resistance of the colonized. After 228, Taiwan was further dragged into the Chinese civil war which had nothing to do with Taiwan itself. In the end, Taiwan actually became a base for Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's plot to "take back the mainland." While the KMT's military attack to regain control of Mainland China never happened, Taiwan in the meantime has changed greatly. The KMT has exploited the land and the people of Taiwan: rampant deforestation continues as the land no longer holds water, illegal deals, bribes and embezzlement take place regularly between and among government employers and business people; the blacklist and so-called "white terror," etc. have not only violated human rights but also instigated fear and distrust in the heart of the Taiwanese. By and large, international factors also contributed to the KMT occupation of Taiwan. The Cold War made it necessary for the United States and its allies to strike a balance of power to counter the USSR. In so doing, they chose to overlook the universal trend of independence movements in former colonies in the post war era. In the Peace Treaty of San Francisco, Japanese concession of Taiwan was made and yet the status of Taiwan was left open for debate. This ambiguity seemed to have embraced the idea of self-determination while leaving room for diplomatic maneuvers for Cold War strategy. In the end, the international world acquiesced and consented to the KMT regime's takeover of Taiwan as a result of the interplay of the Cold War and Red Scare engendered by McCarthyism in the US. As the Cold War dragged on, the fact that Taiwan was under the KMT's colonial rule was forgotten. The reality of a Chinese rule seemed to have justified for the claim that Taiwan was part of China. Additionally, after China's breakup with the USSR in the fifties, the US and its allies strategically had to lure China for the balance of power. As a result, Taiwan again was a victim in the game played among the imperialistic powers. Whereas the international world remains close with China and sometimes comes under China's dictating threat, some people, blinded by the propaganda of the KMT, deemed the KMT colonial pretension as a legitimate claim; they completely ignored the sovereignty of Taiwan. It was not until the failing of the KMT's diplomatic efforts in the seventies that this regime began implementing the policy of localization. However, while co-opting the Taiwanese elite into its system, the KMT still vehemently denied the right of self-determination for the people in Taiwan. The situation resembles the limited self-rule a colony would be permitted during the colonial period. The Chinese policy of Chiang Ching-kuo insisting on "One China" has remained largely the same after Lee Teng-hui succeeded Chiang. "The Guidelines for the Unification of China" (kuo tung kang ling) best illustrates this point. This document was drafted without consultation with Taiwanese society at large or the endorsement of the Taiwanese. Although emphasizing flexible, pragmatic objectives for different stages, it presupposes the ultimate goal of unification. Moreover, KMT considers Taiwan a tool for China's achieving "democracy, liberty and equality." The exploitative, colonial policy certainly cannot be accepted by any sensible Taiwanese. Constitutionally or administratively, Taiwan during the forty something years of KMT rule is fundamentally a colony. Realpolitik in the international world and self-desertion of some Taiwanese have justified the KMT regime on Taiwan while consenting to the PRC's claim of authority in and ownership of Taiwan. However, no foreign governments or regimes should ever be allowed to seize the sovereignty of Taiwan. III. The KMT Should Take Full Responsibility for Its Diplomatic Failure The United States had given up on the KMT shortly after World War ¢º ended, but the Korean War altered the situation. Geopolitical and strategic reasons prompted the US to include Taiwan on its defensive front. The KMT therefore acted obsequiously toward the United States to play the role of a loyal ally. The United States responded by backing the KMT regime in the United Nations as the sole legitimate government of China. The KMT regime also established close ties with authoritarian regimes sponsored by the US in Latin America under the principle of anti-communism ¡Ð an act that severely damaged Taiwan's international reputation. During the seventies, the US sought to reconciliate with China and attempted to persuade the KMT to consent to the Chinese Communist regime's admission to the United Nations according to the policy of "One Country, Two Representatives" and "Two Chinas." However, Chiang Kai-shek refused and the KMT regime was expelled from the United Nations. From then on, Taiwan is reduced to a mere "political entity" without an ID card in the international world. The US and China established formal diplomatic relations in 1979. And yet the KMT administration persisted in its claim of "One China" and itself as the only legitimate government regardless. This rhetoric forced other countries to choose between the KMT and Communist China when the usual result was to cut off their diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Although Chiang Ching-kuo brought forth the principle of "Flexible Diplomacy" which attempted to maintain substantive ties without formal diplomatic relations with other states, he still preposterously proclaimed that his regime represented all Chinese in the world without recognizing the diplomatic embarrassment. Due to the illegitimate nature of the KMT regime, President Lee Teng-hui has grabbed every possible chance that he can use to consolidate and legitimate his regime. Confronted by the Taiwanese' frustration with its diplomatic failure and the growing pressure from the opposition campaign, the KMT regime has come up with "Pragmatic Diplomacy," meaning acknowledging the reality of the two political entities even though retaining the belief that "there is only one China" and that "Taiwan is part of China." Efforts were made for "re-entry" to the United Nations as the KMT has turned itself back to accepting the offer the US made before: "One Nation, Two Representatives" and "Dual Recognition." For now, China's refusal and pressure constitute the main impediments to the KMT's diplomatic efforts. In our view, however, this impasse is mainly due to the decision makers' failure to recognize Taiwan's independence of China. They consider consent to "Dual Recognition," an expedient means for the immediate diplomatic necessity while the unification goal should remain the ultimate goal in all cases. That is why any label or title can be used but the name, "Taiwan." The international reality points to a different direction, however. As we can see, as long as the KMT uses any appellation containing "Chinese" or "China," it will be less possible for Taiwan to gain formal support in international organizations. This is why the European Community will not recognize or back "The Republic of China on Taiwan." Lee Teng-hui has recently expressed willingness to concede to the openup of "three ways of communications" (san tung) in exchange for admission to the United Nations. In any case, diplomatic obstacles cannot and will not be easily overcome unless the KMT regime gives up its "One Chine" policy and uses "Taiwan" as a formal title in the international community. IV. Our Vehement Objection to China's "Basic Guidelines" Regarding Taiwan The white paper China released last month states that "Peaceful Unification" and "One Country, Two Systems" are the basic principles of its Taiwan policy. The paper lists four guidelines: one China, coexistence of two systems, extensive autonomy, and peaceful negotiation. China warns that the Taiwan question is a purely domestic issue and thus to be solved under the premise of "One China." It further pronounces that peaceful unification is a fixed policy of the Chinese government. However, this government will reserve the right to take all action necessary, including military action, to protect its territorial integrity and governing authority. As a note directed at foreign states, the paper delivers its intention to keep out foreign intervention. "The Chinese government is not obliged to any foreign country and makes no promise whatsoever." In our opinion, the Chinese assumption and interpretation of the Taiwan issue are extremely absurd. Taiwan by no means is a part of the People's Republic of China, whether from the perspective of history, international law, or reality. This being the case, what position does the PRC have to formulate the "peaceful unification, one China" policy which aims at devouring Taiwan? China's chauvinistic ambitions are clearly manifested in light of this. The white paper further contends that the status quo, i.e. separation, is most unfortunate to the Chinese people; every Chinese yearns for this grievous separation to end. This is one-sided and biased. The Chinese administration should know better that its adversary is the KMT, not the Taiwanese. If it were not for the KMT's defeat by the communists, Taiwan would not have been subjugated to the KMT's reign of terror for over forty years ¡Ð most unfortunate to the Taiwanese. Furthermore, if China takes notice of the humiliation the Taiwanese feel under the KMT's colonial rule, it should know that the Taiwanese will not allow anything similar to happen again: not another alien Chinese regime. Thus, what the paper claims, that "Taiwanese pervasively desire for unification" and that "the majority of powerful political figures in Taiwan hold the belief in unification," merely reveals how ignorant China is about the will of the Taiwanese. While we think it pathetic of China to make up such a lie, it also makes us seriously suspect what ill intention is really behind all this. China's address to the Taiwan issue is prevailingly inconsistent. On one hand, it acknowledges the rightful demand of the Taiwanese for the jurisdiction of self-rule; on the other hand, it refuses to see such jurisdiction as "independence." Would China be able to retain its sovereignty were it not an independent country? How is it possible for the Taiwanese to have jurisdiction of self-rule, i.e. sovereignty, if Taiwan is not an independent nation? The white paper delivers the gravest insult to Taiwanese by alleging that "Taiwan's independence movement is a sell-out to foreign countries that hope to see a divided China." It even forewarns that China will not simply sit and watch the occurrence of any action that may possible lead to Taiwan's independence. We are telling the Chinese government now: the right to pursue the founding of an independent country is an inalienable right that the Taiwanese are entitled to; all people with dignity deserve this right. In our fight for an independent state of Taiwan, we need and welcome international support. Such support is the major force to ensure justice and peace in the international community. By voicing its threat, China not only expounds its disrespect for moral courage in the international community but also reveals its disdain for human rights. V. Taiwan's Status According to International Law China attempts to claim its jurisdiction over Taiwan using four principles of international law: first, every sovereign country has the right to protect its unity and territorial integrity; second, Taiwan historically belongs to China; third, the proclamation issued at the Cairo conferences in 1943 states that Taiwan be returned to China; lastly, Taiwan is considered a part of China in the international world. The above may sound reasonable at first glance; however, we will demonstrate that these so-called "principles" cannot hold under an intensive scrutiny of international law. Taiwan, logistically or juristically, is a sovereign state that should attain an international status equivalent to that of its equals. It should also be stressed that Taiwan's future can only be decided by the Taiwanese, not any superpowers or alien regimes. First of all, China's claim regarding the territorial integrity of a sovereign country is based on a principle of traditional international law. Modern international law pronounces the idea that, people have a right, which is above the territorial right of a state, to found a government that can truly represent all the people in the said region and not to be subject to oppression as a result of racial, religious, ethnic and other differences. The principle of self-determination has been asserted time and again in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial countries and peoples (1960), in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and co-operation among States in accordance with the chart of the United Nations (1970), and in various opinions of the International Court of Justice. Therefore, when a certain number of people, or the minority groups within an existing state are oppressed, they have the right to demand independence and self-determination. That is, a state's territorial right cannot override the principle of self-determination. Tibet under the Chinese regime best illustrates this point. It is widely recognized and supported that Tibetans are entitled to the right of self-determination which overweighs China's right of territorial integrity. In the case of Taiwan, it is more so since Taiwan has never been ruled by the People's Republic of China. In other words, Taiwan's effort to become an independent country conforms fully to the principle of self-determination widely adopted in international law. Secondly, China's assertion that Taiwan historically has been part of China cannot definitively determine whom the jurisdiction of Taiwan should belong to. While such a rule may have been applied to the resolution of territorial disputed in the past, it was mainly used to settle disputes among two or more states such as those between China and India, and China and southeast Asian countries, etc. Therefore, it is inappropriate to apply this principle to our case. Moreover, this rule was adopted during the feudal era when a lord treated his people on his land as his own possession at his disposal. In modern societies, the will of the people on the land in dispute has become decisive in the judicature of the International Court of Justice. Therefore, Taiwan should not be all the disposal of any alien power; the will of the people should decide the future of the land, not vice versa. The claim of territorial supremacy laid by China, while neglecting the will of the Taiwanese, not only violates international law but also reveals its territorial ambition. Thirdly, China invokes the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and Portsdam Declaration of 1945 as proof that Japan returned Taiwan to China after the war. However, it is questionable whether the proclamation made at the Cairo conferences is legally equivalent to an international treaty. Above all, since Japan was not among the attendants of these conferences, it was not legally bound by the proclamation made during these conferences. That is, the Cairo Declaration had no virtual constraining power with regard to Japan and its occupied territories. Since international law recognized only mutual peace treaties signed by the warring states, the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951) is much more appropriate in determining the status of Taiwan. The SF Peace Treaty stated that Japan gave up its claims on Taiwan and the Pescadores. However, there were no remarks saying that Taiwan would be given to China (According to Article 21, what China would gain was stipulated in Articles 10 and 14). After signing this treaty, Japan no longer has any right to give Taiwan away because according to international law it did not own Taiwan anymore. Fourthly, to justify its intent to annex Taiwan, China suggests that one hundred and fifty-seven countries recognize that Taiwan is part of China. In fact, these countries use words such as "understand" or "notice" instead of "endorse" of "confer" referring to the "One China" policy. Above all, countries not directly involved in a territorial dispute have no right to decide on the ownership according to international law. For example, it means little if Japan recognizes Hawaii as a part of Canada. All in all, international law is constructed on facts and actuality. If in fact, countries recognize Taiwan as part of China, they would and should have to acquire China's permission when they trade with Taiwan and when their people, aircraft, ships travel in and out of Taiwan; otherwise, these actions would clearly violate China's sovereignty. The fact that they do not have to deal with Taiwan vis-a-vis China again demonstrates their recognition that Taiwan is not part of China. Lastly, by asking the international world to recognize Taiwan as a part of China, the Chinese government indeed exposes its insecurity toward this false claim. Why would a country request that others recognize its sovereignty over a piece of land if it really governs and owns this land? Obviously, China knows that its claim of Taiwan is factually and logistically weak. VI. Crisis Engendered by the Economic Activities across the Straits "Under the premise of one China, the socialism in the mainland and the capitalism in Taiwan will coexist and develop symbiotically. No one will be devoured. After unification, Taiwan will become a special administrative zone that retains its autonomy and army." The above quotation from China's white paper indicates that China deems Taiwan a part of China. If China is going to make Taiwan a special zone, would it not be the case that Taiwan will be devoured? Furthermore, it is unrealistic that capitalism and socialism can coexist within a country in the long run. While making promises that Taiwan will be allowed to run its own economy, military and party politics, China has attempted all efforts to keep other countries from selling arms to Taiwan. How is it possible for an unarmed army to protect Taiwan's economic and political institutions, and most importantly, its autonomy? The white paper purposely fails to make proposals as to how the economic transition would be made with regard to taxation, finance, currencies, stock markets, exchange rates, foreign reserve, etc. These issues are too complicated to be brushed over simply by the slogan of "Peaceful Unification". Germany's unification shows the cost of a peaceful unification. Economic questions cannot be answered by political slogans. China's failure to address the economic aspect of unification is either because it intentionally avoids the key problems or because of its inability and inexperience in the economic management of free market. A government incapable of administering and managing its domestic market economy does not seem competent enough to rule Taiwan. Between the years 1945 to 1949, Taiwan and China were literally under the policy of "One Country, Two Systems." Taiwan had its own administrative, financial, taxing, and currency system. However, it was still not able to sustain its economic autonomy. China's economic policy exploited Taiwan and ultimately caused the 228 Uprising and the ensuing massacre. There is great discrepancy between Taiwan's GNP per capita of US$10,000 and that of China's of US$400. These days, Chinese who desire a higher living standard have attempted to sneak into Taiwan in great numbers already. If Taiwan were to merge with China and the Chinese could enter Taiwan freely, the impact on Taiwan as a result of a possible population boom would be inestimable. Taiwanese labor will be the first to suffer. A great many social problems may erupt while the economic order will be disrupted. There is also the question of whether or not Taiwanese businessmen will enjoy the same privileges for their investment in China after unification. The white paper also states that "before the realization of unification, both sides should actively promote economic cooperation and other exchanges under the guideline of mutual respect. The opening of such channels as direct postal services, commercial activities and aviation will be necessary steps leading to the peaceful unification of China." China has repeatedly requested for direct contact in all areas in the hope of speeding up the pace of unification. Its "friendly" attitude, however, is merely a gesture. In the same paper that emphasizes the importance of cooperation and mutual help, statements are made regarding China's objection to Taiwan's right to participate in international organizations as an independent entity. Meanwhile, China also denounces Taiwan's aviation rights. In this context, we can see that China's policy in favor of Taiwanese investment is aimed at its own economic development. After all, obtaining foreign capital and technology is perhaps the only way for China to industrialize, and Taiwanese investment provides exactly what China needs. Taiwanese investment in China has more cons than pros to Taiwan, nevertheless. In the short run, lower labor costs and cheaper raw materials may seem profit-promising. In the long run, several problems will emerge: 1) Chinese products will create intense competition with Taiwan's exports; 2) Taiwan's effort for industrial upgrading will slow down; 3) There will be a hollowing-out; 4) Taiwan's economic edge over China will diminish; 5) Taiwan will gradually fall into the trap of China's strategy of speeding up the pace of unification through commercial activities. China is undertaking a carrot-and-stick policy that seeks to drain Taiwan's economy, erode the sense of unity among Taiwanese with sweet talk on one hand, and disintegrate Taiwan's international network with threats of violence on the other hand. Economic development is perhaps the only area Taiwan has comparative advantage over China. But this advantage may soon recede if more Taiwanese capital flows to China and creates Taiwan's economic dependency on China. VII. Democratic Independence: The Only Hope for Taiwan There are about twenty-one million people in Taiwan. Four ethnic groups constitute the population: the aborigines, Hakka, Hok-lo and Mainlanders. The ending of Japanese colonial rule in 1945 and the massive Chinese immigration flow in 1949 made fundamental changes in the population composition. Since then, people in Taiwan have lived under the same econo-political system. The economic power, area of arable land, and educated population of Taiwan should promise a quality of standard of living in a modern country. And yet, due to the KMT's colonial mentality, Taiwanese seem to be living in an anarchy, judicially, culturally and psychologically. In the midst of this desolation burgeoned an opposition movement that emerged in 1986 as a dynamic opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Its agenda of building an independent state has gained support in Taiwanese society. The percentage of votes DPP gets in elections increases every time. In the latest legislative election in 1992, DPP candidates won about 40 percent of the votes and one-third of the seats. These facts provide evidence that more and more Taiwanese approve of and identify with the cause of Taiwan's independence. That is, more and more Taiwanese would like to be "the masters of their own homeland¢wTaiwan." While the ban on newspapers and political parties was lifted and the censorship on freedom of speech and other liberties was loosened in 1987, the forty years under martial law had distorted the social structure in Taiwan so much that it cannot be undone promptly. As a result, the KMT's party-owned business establishment still dominates the economy and the media. An austere and inept educational system keeps stifling the creativity of the youth. Meanwhile, persisting authoritarian rule has quenched the Taiwanese' confidence of and interest in political reforms. In fact, there is an urgent need for a Taiwanese constitution to serve the people of Taiwan, in place of the Constitution of the Republic of China ratified in China in 1946. Compelled by the students' movement in March, 1990, the KMT under Lee Teng-hui responded to the call for constitutional reform. However, its answer was to mobilize the representatives to the National Assembly (kuo min ta hui), most of them elected forty years ago, to ensure that few changes would be made. As a result, the text of the ROC Constitution was not touched at all and the "temporary measures in war time" were snuck in as amendments. This undertaking clearly violated the Taiwanese' right of making a constitution and overlooked our demand for ethnic harmony, social welfare and other concerns. On August 25 and 26, 1991, the DPP and several social groups and political organizations gathered for People's Constitutional Assembly. Concluding the conference was the "Draft of the Taiwan Constitution" outlining the institutional structure of government such as a unicameral legislature. It also asserts the fundamental social rights and the right to local self-rule and direct election of the president. For future development, Taiwan should join the United Nations and other international organizations. But first, we have to break away from the myth of Chinese chauvinism and the unification reverie. Democracy has to be institutionalized and other things normalized for Taiwan to become a civilized and humane country. In this context, the name "Taiwan" will be accepted more easily in the international world. Taiwan can thus engage in international activities under the auspices of equality, liberty, and mutual benefit. VIII. Taiwan Is Qualified for Membership of The International Community China chose to issue this white paper now for the purpose of exerting pressure on other countries while nipping Taiwan's effort to expand foreign relation in the bud. We are protesting China's hostile move by asserting the point that Taiwan is a sovereign country. With full international personality, Taiwan has every right to participate in any international activity or organization. As far as the United Nations Resolution 2758 of 1971 is concerned, we believe that it merely assures the Chinese Communist regime's legitimacy of representing China. Its denouncement of the Chiang regime's claim cannot be equated with a rejection of Taiwan's status as an independent country. It does not grant China the right to claim Taiwan as a part of its territory in any sense. In fact, in the debate regarding Chinese representation, there was a broad consensus that: 1) the PRC be admitted to UN as China; 2) Taiwan was not a province of the PRC; 3) the future of Taiwan be decided by Taiwanese according to the principles of UN Charter and self-determination; The demand by the Taiwanese for a vote on entering the UN in the name of "Taiwan" is precisely a deed of self-determination to ensure Taiwan's international status as a de jure state. Compared with the one hundred and eighty-four members of the UN, Taiwan ranks medium in population and territory; it is in the upper tier in terms of culture and economy. Taiwan's trading volume ranks fourteenth; the ranking of our GDP is twentieth while that of GNP per capita is twenty-fifth in the world. Taiwan's foreign reserves come closely after Japan's and Germany's while it has become the seventh biggest country in foreign investment. Taiwan has provided technical assistance, human resources and monetary aid to help many developing and under-developed countries. Article Four of the UN Charter states that members can be admitted if they be peace-loving states that accept the obligations contained in the Charter and be able and willing to carry out these obligations. Taiwan is well-qualified for UN membership under this condition. Its request to enter the UN should therefore be taken seriously. It should be clarified that the KMT's proposition of "parallel representation of a divided nation" is nothing more than a game of words. The truth is, the KMT has no intention of becoming a member of the UN. This can be detected from Lee Teng-hui's remark that, "The effort to get into the UN should not be used by the DPP as a scheme for Taiwan's independence." The Taiwanese desire formal admission to membership of the UN rather than the position of an observer. Lee's approach, willing and bound to settle for less due to his refusal to use the name "Taiwan" cannot be accepted by the Taiwanese. We demand that China stop interfering with Taiwan's international relations. It is about time that China acknowledge Taiwan's sovereignty and respect the will of the Taiwanese. We also call on the international community to recognize the right of the Taiwanese people to found an independent country. Conclusion Ancient Chinese philosophy stresses the moral difference between a lord and a bandit. Coming to power by killing the innocent is unacceptable. However, this political virtue is not performed by the contemporary Chinese rulers who continually oppress Tibetans, intimidate the Taiwanese, and test nuclear bombs regardless of the danger and pollution from these testings. The white paper uses the term "Chinese Nation" (chung hua min tsu) in an attempt to draw connections and affiliations. The fact is, this term comes from around a hundred years ago when Chinese intellectuals coined the term for the formation of a national identity. From the works of Sun Yat-sen and Chang Tai-yen, one can see the discriminatory, Han-chauvinistic attitude behind this. In the past, it served to unify the Republic of China by the Han. Today, it serves the Han of the People's Republic of China. If the KMT regime continues to use this term, "Chinese Nation" in creating an illusion to fool the Taiwanese, it is positioning Taiwan in danger of Han invasion by the PRC. Therefore, we ask that all political factions and parties hasten themselves to the development of an independent Taiwanese identity through reforms in the media and school education. In conclusion, Taiwanese have the right to decide their own future. Any political party hoping to win support from the Taiwanese will have to identify with Taiwan, recognizing and sharing the common destiny of all the people on Taiwan. To terminate the tragedy of centuries of colonial rule, Taiwanese have to establish an independent country by their own effort with the help of the international community. We believe that there is no "China Question" or "Taiwan Question." Taiwan and China should share the belief that the two countries should normalize their relationship under the premises of mutual respect for each's sovereignty and territorial integrity, peaceful coexistence and mutual cooperation. Only till then, will there be peace and prosperity for the two peoples of the two countries. {PAGE|13} {PAGE|13}