Having seen major street protests in many countries around the world over the last few years, now it is our turn here in Taiwan. Last year, after secret negotiations, representatives from China and Taiwan signed the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement. This would open up 64 sectors in the Taiwan service industry to investment by China, including telecommunications, hospital services, social services, advertising, packaging, printing, insurance, banking, hairdressing, courier services, freight transport, and many more. Following objections that the pact is not only disadvantageous to Taiwan but a threat to national security, the Kuomintang (KMT) government reiterated that the pact would be subject to a clause-by-clause review in the Legislative Yuan. However, last week the KMT unilaterally sent the agreement to the legislative floor without the review in a move that was widely seen as an illegal violation of procedure as well as of the promises previously made. In response, hundreds of protestors, mainly students, stormed the Legislative Yuan on the morning of March 18, occupying the main chamber. Subsequently, thousands of supporters gathered on the streets outside the Legislative Yuan, preventing the police from entering the building in large numbers to take away the students occupying the building. This movement has been variously called the March 18 Student Movement, the Sunflower Student Movement, or Occupy Taiwan Legislature. Many people I know have been out on the nearby streets for the past few days (a few even inside the Legislative Yuan), and I myself went out one night (I'd have gone more often if I weren't occupied with child care duties). Now we hear that groups dissatisfied with the response of President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Jiang Yi-huah have also broken into the Executive Yuan.
So what exactly is wrong with the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement? Everything, really. First of all, the secretive way in which it was negotiated and signed was unacceptable in and of itself. I read an account by an anonymous government worker who said they were asked to do write ups on the agreement without being told exactly what was in it. Then the KMT's moves to force it through without review raised even more red flags. In some ways, it resembles the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that the US has been negotiating with several Asian countries. That also has been negotiated in secret, and there was an attempt to give it fast track passage through the US Congress, which has fortunately been stymied. As awful as some of the rumored provisions of the TPP are, however, the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement presents a much greater existential threat to Taiwan and its people than the TPP does to the US. Though Taiwan's per capita income is still considerably higher than China's, given the huge disparity in size and the large number of large, often state-supported businesses in China, many of Taiwan's industries are in danger of being swamped by the Chinese if this agreement passes, while at the same time many of Taiwan's highly educated workers will be siphoned away to China (this is already a problem now, but it will be exacerbated by this agreement). China supposedly is opening up many industries to Taiwanese investment as well, but China's past track record shows that the government will not provide a level playing field to foreign investors, and little of any money that Taiwanese business do make in China will find its way back to Taiwan.
Ma and the KMT claim the agreement will boost the Taiwanese economy, but who will actually benefit? It is instructive to look at real estate, another industry that the government wants to open up to Chinese investment. Taiwan's housing prices are already excessively high, boosted by speculation by a small percentage of immensely wealthy Taiwanese who buy and sell apartments like they were trading baseball cards, especially since the taxes they have to pay on their profits are minimal. If Chinese are also allowed to do this, the real estate market will get a boost in the sense that even more speculation will go on, prices will go even higher, and the building boom will continue longer without fear of immediate collapse. But who will benefit from that? Construction companies, real estate speculators from Taiwan and China, and real estate agencies, but not the average Taiwanese, who will have to give up any hope of being able to afford to buy an apartment. The effects of this agreement on many industries will be similar. Smaller Taiwanese business will be driven out of business and while the economy may get a superficial boost, most Taiwanese will not benefit.
But the major threat is to Taiwan's freedom. Lest we forget, China claims Taiwan as its territory, refusing to recognize the fact of its independent existence, and it has never renounced the use of force against Taiwan. If China is allowed to invest heavily in Taiwanese industries such as telecommunications, it will gain a substantial measure of control over freedom of information in Taiwan. Already there are pro-China media groups (most notably the truly despicable Want Want group, which owns major newspapers and television stations and is basically a mouthpiece for pro-China policies), most of which are currently portraying the protestors in the most negative light possible (I just read one shared post from someone who claims to have seen a team from one TV station kick over a garbage can and film it in an effort to portray the students as riotous and destructive). With significant Chinese investment, this situation will become much worse. Will a Chinese-invested printing company print books supporting Taiwan's independence, or the Tibetan cause? Will employees of companies with significant Chinese ownership feel free to be involved in political activities that might be seen as opposing Chinese interests? Already there are some areas of creeping self-censorship. Not only do many major newspapers, magazines and TV stations avoid stories that are too critical of China, but many in the entertainment industry suck up to China in hopes of making money there. It's even hard to find a world globe that doesn't show Taiwan as part of China, since most of the globes sold in Taiwan are made there. One of Taiwan's greatest assets is its relatively high (if deteriorating) level of freedom of speech. It would be simply idiotic to give that up in hopes of making a little extra money. After all, what good is wealth if you live in a cage?
For an overview of the Sunflower Student Movement, check out this site. For a more detailed look at the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement in (imperfect) English, check out this slideshow.
[Update – Here are some additional articles and commentaries on the protest and related issues:
What Unprecedented Protest Means for Taiwan
Beijing's strategy to 'buy' Taiwan: Coerced unification without firing a shot
Say Goodbye to 'Peaceful Unification']
Monday, March 24, 2014
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Crimea, Secession and the Right to Self-Determination
The big international story in recent weeks has been the Ukrainian crisis, with weeks of protests and a violent attempt to suppress them being followed by the pro-Russian president fleeing the country, and then efforts by some in the pro-Russian eastern half of the country to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. Most of the attention has been focused on Crimea, the peninsula jutting into the northern Black Sea. Russian troops entered the region and took over many installations (the troops did not wear Russian uniforms and Russian President Vladimir Putin denied they were Russian, but they spoke Russian, drove vehicles with Russian plates, had Russian tanks, and in some cases even admitted to journalists that they were Russian), and now the pro-Russian local parliament is holding a referendum this weekend on joining Russia. However, the United States and the European Union oppose these moves and have spoken in favor of the "territorial integrity" of Ukraine.
I will admit to mixed feelings about all this. I strongly dislike the autocratic, corrupt and homophobic Putin, and I certainly oppose his military aggression in Crimea. On the other hand, I am strongly in favor of the right to self-determination and I dislike the tendency of countries from the US to China to talk as if national borders which have changed throughout history are now set in stone forever. I support the principle that regions which have certain historical and cultural factors that set them apart from the countries they are currently attached to should have the right to freely decide whether or not to remain in those countries, whether we are talking about West Papua (Indonesia), Western Sahara (Morocco), Tibet (China), Quebec (Canada), Scotland (the United Kingdom) or Puerto Rico (the United States). While history should never be a final determinant of who a particular land should belong to in the present, there are several factors that favor the claim that Crimea should not be part of Ukraine. Not only is it Russian-speaking and home to a major Russian naval base in Sevastopol, but it wasn't even attached to Ukraine until 1954, when under the Ukrainian-born Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev it was detached from Russia and made a part of Ukraine. This is why in my previous blog I said that I leaned to supporting the idea of a referendum in Crimea.
However, there are several problems with this particular referendum. First of all, in the places I mentioned above and the places such as East Timor, Kosovo and South Sudan that have already successfully held similar referendums, independence is (or was) the goal. That is not the case here. I'm not a big fan of nation-states in general, and I'm particularly not a fan of overly large ones like Russia and China (or even the United States). If we are going to have nation-states as the basic units the world is split up into (which I don't necessarily think is the best option in the first place), it certainly would be better if they are reasonably equal in power. This is far from the case at present, which is why big nations can and do bully smaller ones (see for instance, China's behavior in the South China Sea). So I can't really like the prospect of one of the world's biggest nations (and biggest bullies) getting bigger. And it's not as if the area was always (not that there is such a thing as "always" in human history) part of Russia prior to the 20th century. It was home to many different groups, including the Greek Bosporan Kingdom, the Goths, the Huns, the Bulgars, and many more. For many centuries, it was the land of the Crimean Tartars, who were only conquered by Russia in 1783 (the same year Britain recognized the independence of the US). The Tartars were forcibly removed under Stalin and only allowed to return to their homeland in recent decades, so now they make up only a little over a tenth of the population, but their "historical claim" is at least as valid as that of the Russian government.
What's more, for a referendum like this to truly be a valid representation of the desires of the people in question, the vote has to held under the freest and fairest circumstances possible, which certainly doesn't look like the case here. There should be plenty of time for campaigning and sober reflection on the part of the voters, since there is hardly any kind of vote that is more important than this. But the vote in the Crimea is being rushed, taking place just weeks after the overthrow of the Ukrainian president Yanukovych. What's more, the vote is taking place with Russian troops still in Crimea and Ukrainian television is reportedly being blocked. A referendum held under such circumstances, especially when the vote will potentially be to the benefit of the nation of the occupying troops, is of very dubious validity.
If it were up to me, I would say that Russian troops should be withdrawn and Crimea should temporarily be restored to Ukraine, with a referendum to be held in the future, say in about a year's time, in which Crimeans can choose between remaining in Ukraine, joining Russia, or becoming independent. But in return for Crimea having the option of joining Russia, Russia in turn has to allow certain of its own regions, such as Chechnya, to likewise hold free and fair referendums on whether or not to remain part of Russia. After all, the right of self-determination should apply equally to all. It certainly should not be used as a tool for the aggrandizement of already bloated imperial nation-states.
Update (2014/03/17): While unsurprisingly it looks like the referendum passed, it's worth noting that the Crimean Tartars apparently opposed the referendum. As noted above, the Crimean Tartars are the ethnic group with the longest history in the Crimea. While they were not the original inhabitants, nor was their khanate the longest-lasting realm in the area (the mixed race but culturally Greek Bosporan Kingdom lasted for 800 years, from the 5th century BCE to the 4th century CD), they have been in the area for about eight centuries, and the Crimean Khanate lasted from the 15th century until annexation by Russia in 1783, and in fact the modern name "Crimea" derives from the former Tartar capital. While, as noted above, the Crimean Tartars only make up 12% of the current population, their opposition to the prospect of joining Russia carries extra moral weight. Of course in any vote of this nature one of the biggest problems is ensuring that minority groups who oppose the prospective change in status will be protected. Of course, this vote, taking place as it did in the midst of a military occupation by Russia, is of questionable legitimacy already, so it's hard to be too optimistic about how well the interests of the Crimean Tartars, or the ethnic Ukrainians who make up 24% of the population, will be protected by Russia.
I will admit to mixed feelings about all this. I strongly dislike the autocratic, corrupt and homophobic Putin, and I certainly oppose his military aggression in Crimea. On the other hand, I am strongly in favor of the right to self-determination and I dislike the tendency of countries from the US to China to talk as if national borders which have changed throughout history are now set in stone forever. I support the principle that regions which have certain historical and cultural factors that set them apart from the countries they are currently attached to should have the right to freely decide whether or not to remain in those countries, whether we are talking about West Papua (Indonesia), Western Sahara (Morocco), Tibet (China), Quebec (Canada), Scotland (the United Kingdom) or Puerto Rico (the United States). While history should never be a final determinant of who a particular land should belong to in the present, there are several factors that favor the claim that Crimea should not be part of Ukraine. Not only is it Russian-speaking and home to a major Russian naval base in Sevastopol, but it wasn't even attached to Ukraine until 1954, when under the Ukrainian-born Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev it was detached from Russia and made a part of Ukraine. This is why in my previous blog I said that I leaned to supporting the idea of a referendum in Crimea.
However, there are several problems with this particular referendum. First of all, in the places I mentioned above and the places such as East Timor, Kosovo and South Sudan that have already successfully held similar referendums, independence is (or was) the goal. That is not the case here. I'm not a big fan of nation-states in general, and I'm particularly not a fan of overly large ones like Russia and China (or even the United States). If we are going to have nation-states as the basic units the world is split up into (which I don't necessarily think is the best option in the first place), it certainly would be better if they are reasonably equal in power. This is far from the case at present, which is why big nations can and do bully smaller ones (see for instance, China's behavior in the South China Sea). So I can't really like the prospect of one of the world's biggest nations (and biggest bullies) getting bigger. And it's not as if the area was always (not that there is such a thing as "always" in human history) part of Russia prior to the 20th century. It was home to many different groups, including the Greek Bosporan Kingdom, the Goths, the Huns, the Bulgars, and many more. For many centuries, it was the land of the Crimean Tartars, who were only conquered by Russia in 1783 (the same year Britain recognized the independence of the US). The Tartars were forcibly removed under Stalin and only allowed to return to their homeland in recent decades, so now they make up only a little over a tenth of the population, but their "historical claim" is at least as valid as that of the Russian government.
What's more, for a referendum like this to truly be a valid representation of the desires of the people in question, the vote has to held under the freest and fairest circumstances possible, which certainly doesn't look like the case here. There should be plenty of time for campaigning and sober reflection on the part of the voters, since there is hardly any kind of vote that is more important than this. But the vote in the Crimea is being rushed, taking place just weeks after the overthrow of the Ukrainian president Yanukovych. What's more, the vote is taking place with Russian troops still in Crimea and Ukrainian television is reportedly being blocked. A referendum held under such circumstances, especially when the vote will potentially be to the benefit of the nation of the occupying troops, is of very dubious validity.
If it were up to me, I would say that Russian troops should be withdrawn and Crimea should temporarily be restored to Ukraine, with a referendum to be held in the future, say in about a year's time, in which Crimeans can choose between remaining in Ukraine, joining Russia, or becoming independent. But in return for Crimea having the option of joining Russia, Russia in turn has to allow certain of its own regions, such as Chechnya, to likewise hold free and fair referendums on whether or not to remain part of Russia. After all, the right of self-determination should apply equally to all. It certainly should not be used as a tool for the aggrandizement of already bloated imperial nation-states.
Update (2014/03/17): While unsurprisingly it looks like the referendum passed, it's worth noting that the Crimean Tartars apparently opposed the referendum. As noted above, the Crimean Tartars are the ethnic group with the longest history in the Crimea. While they were not the original inhabitants, nor was their khanate the longest-lasting realm in the area (the mixed race but culturally Greek Bosporan Kingdom lasted for 800 years, from the 5th century BCE to the 4th century CD), they have been in the area for about eight centuries, and the Crimean Khanate lasted from the 15th century until annexation by Russia in 1783, and in fact the modern name "Crimea" derives from the former Tartar capital. While, as noted above, the Crimean Tartars only make up 12% of the current population, their opposition to the prospect of joining Russia carries extra moral weight. Of course in any vote of this nature one of the biggest problems is ensuring that minority groups who oppose the prospective change in status will be protected. Of course, this vote, taking place as it did in the midst of a military occupation by Russia, is of questionable legitimacy already, so it's hard to be too optimistic about how well the interests of the Crimean Tartars, or the ethnic Ukrainians who make up 24% of the population, will be protected by Russia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
