Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has said that China will never allow Taiwan to use democracy to achieve independence. He was speaking at the start of a four-day visit to the US. His words will come across as reactionary and repugnant. Imagine if Tony Blair said that the UK would never allow Northern Ireland to use democracy to decide its future, or the Israelis that they would never accept Palestinians voting for their freedom. There would be fury across the world at such tyranny, and the Chinese would join the chorus.
Ironically, the limitations of democracy are also the American way. Under US constitutional law, no state is allowed to secede. The Americans fought a civil war over it.
That is one reason why, if it comes to a fight between China and Taiwan over independence, Washington will not take military action. There are, however, more practical considerations. Washington sees China as an economic partner, even as a potential political ally. China is using this. But it too needs the US, or rather the US market. It could not afford the consequences if Washington and the rest of the world were to impose sanctions in response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. It is therefore in both nations’ interest to prevent a bust-up over Taiwan.
There should be no question about it. If Taiwan wants independence, then it should have it. China is acting the bully with its threats and missiles pointed at Taiwan. But it is Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian who is stirring this up. This is all about him getting re-elected in the presidential elections next March.
The referendum on China being asked to remove its missiles, which has so excited Beijing, is also planned for March. That is no coincidence.
Knowing full well that no one in their right mind is going to vote in favor of the weapons, he is trying to whip up a wave of sentiment and then surf back to power on it.
If that were all, we could ignore it as just a bit of populist electioneering. China certainly is not going to invade over a request to remove its missiles. It has shown time and again that it can live with a Taiwan independent in all but name. For Beijing, it is the formalities that count, and that is what it thinks this referendum is really all about.
President Chen’s original idea was a referendum on independence, but he backed down because he knew that China might invade over it. But he still hankers after the formalities of sovereignty — a seat at the UN, diplomatic recognition and all the associated paraphernalia of independence, as do many Taiwanese.
Beijing’s bullying is repugnant but it is a political fact of life. The danger is that President Chen’s electioneering ploy could take on a momentum of its own — with very dangerous results.
