Monday, 1 June 2009

DPP short on new ideas

The problem confronting the DPP (and others) regarding how to deal with China,
or rather the empty chasm of ideas, is evidenced by the following opinion piece by Paul Lin,
one of the intellectual heavyweights wheeled out regularly by the TT

Taipei Times: DPP needs plan to deal with China


... China’s existence is a fact that Taiwan cannot ignore. It is inevitable that Taiwan has to deal with China and that refusing to do so is not an option. The key issue is how Taiwan should go about it.

... So how should members of the pan-green camp deal with China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?
First of all, they should clarify Taiwan’s status, a precondition for establishing equality. Taiwan has never denied the existence of the People’s Republic of China, but China refuses to recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty, and Ma has never protested against this.

so far so good, though this has not much of substance.

... For example, they must refuse the recent practice of Taiwanese politicians going to China to “worship their ancestors” because this is part of China’s united front strategy and a nationalist ruse to present China as Taiwan’s ancestor.

ok, that's more substantial, but it shows the problems the opposition faces.
any measure like this will easily be portrayed (and dismissed) as an attack on individual liberty,
moreover, given the power of religion to ride roughshod over rationalism and politics, it will be kicked out before it even gets off the ground.

... In addition, they must also strictly adhere to the principle of avoiding conflicts of interest, and anyone with vested interests in China should not be sent there.

again, this will be rejected as an attack on individual rights

During the talks, they should act with self-respect but avoid being arrogant, and there is no need to make statements designed to upset the CCP. They should adopt an equanimous attitude and make clear their commitment to Taiwan’s sovereignty, freedom and human rights at appropriate times.

back to high-minded but substance-lacking ideas
...

No comments:

Post a Comment