> In spite of this, IMO, they should not today be
> fusioned without the consent of a clear majority in both countries,
> expressed in a referendum after a democratic and informed discussion.
For once, Trond, I disagree with you. At least, I think the Taiwan issue
is not so clear cut.
The question of who gets to have veto power in such a case is to me
quite murky, to say the least. For example, the British government takes
the position that the electorate of Northern Ireland have veto power on
the question of Irish reunification. Yet Northern Ireland is precisely
the political enitity created by British colonialism to sabotage Irish
independence and sovereignty. In such a case I wouldn't say that,
morally at least, the electorate in the North has an absolute veto.
In the case of Taiwan, this "country" only exists as a result of the
events of 1948-9, the flight of the 'Nationalist' political leadership
to the island (at that time no-one disputed that it was part of China --
in fact, for the Nationalists, it WAS China) and the subsequent support
of that leadership by anticommunists in the West.
Moreover for years the 'Nationalist' leadership excluded the indigenous
population of Taiwan from any role in governing the island. The
governemnt claimed to be the legitimate government of all China and its
parliament, until quite recently I think, had representatives whose
'constituencies' where the various provinces of the mainland -- of
course these people were not elected, but retained their pre-1949
titles.
All of which is not to say that "self-determination for Taiwan" is
somehow precluded by history, and indeed as I understand it there is a
quite vigorous Taiwanese independence movement which opposes itself both
to the mainland govt and the "Nationalist" government on the island, and
defends the language, culture, etc. of the indigenous population (Maori?
I can't remember.) But I certainly wouldn't say that China's too big to
be democratic, therefore Taiwan should be an independent country.
Certainly this is up to the Chinese. Of course Trond you also think that
it is up to them, but that there is no reason why you/we shouldn't have
an opinion. I guess I would say that there is no point to our having an
opinion in this case, because a just resolution depends on some
representative political processes weighing various factors (cultural,
political, religious, historical, economic) that we're incompetent to
judge or even fully undertand, and that are in any event in flux.
Moreover given the history of colonialism creating polities to preserve
or extend colonial power (Panama, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait,
Northern Ireland, Hong Kong...) Which is not to say that all
nation-states areen't 'conceived in sin', only that we have to
especially remember how some of them came about, because people in these
regions certainly do. I am not a relativist, so I don't have any trouble
condemning genital mutilation in Sudan or the bombing of the population
of Grozny to punish them for their views; but this case is not nearly so
clear-cut. I empathize to some degree with the Chinese
irritation with the West on this issue.
-bob naiman
P.S. On pen-l silence is often not assent, but rather restraint.
