Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source

Front Page

Readers respond to Henry C K Liu's
Forget reunification, nothing to reunite

What Henry C K Liu leaves out of his pedantic ramblings is always more important than what he leaves in. But his emasculation of the Chinese people (Forget reunification, nothing to reunite , Jan 30) merits comment. The Chinese are certainly not the pathetically hopeless people described by Liu: representing one-fifth of humanity, yet, incredibly, rendered economically impotent in Mao [Zedong]'s heyday by Americans, representing less than 5 percent of mankind, who refused to trade with the despotic, communist emperor of Beijing. This embargo, according to Liu, is the main distinction between Mao's "development" plans for China and Jiang Jing-guo's for Taiwan. The fact that Mao "developed" China into an agricultural and industrial wasteland during the Great Leap Forward, resulting in the deaths of millions, and the incalculable suffering of countless additional millions of Chinese, is thus blithely, unintelligibly attributed to the lack of American trade with China. To illustrate the import of Liu's omissions, take the following quote (Korea: wrong war, wrong place, wrong enemy): "Neither the USSR nor China was likely to enter the war on South Korean territory." Imagine if America had abandoned Korea after World War II. Does any rational person believe that China or the USSR would not have ensured that Korean communists came to power in Korea, a country right on their doorstep? Liu's comment is a smokescreen. China and the Soviet Union would not have to "enter" the Korean civil war through the use of their own troops. Entrance would be in the form of war materiel, financial, political and ideological support that would have been available in spades to the Korean communists. Liu's fatuous pontificating about the acknowledged horrors of the Korean War conveniently omits the obvious alternative - a Chinese- and Russian-supported communist dynasty terrorizing the entire Korean Peninsula after learning well from their tyrannical mentors in Beijing and Moscow.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Jan 30, '04)

It is indeed refreshing to read a well-articulated and soundly argued piece written by someone who sees the issue of Taiwanese independence beyond the immediate and tired knee-jerk emotional lenses. I salute Henry Liu for his courage in stating the legal and historical truths about Taiwan and its Chinese roots. All too often, we in the West, and especially in the United States, apply our shortsighted and tainted visions of our own experiences to the analyses of the complex histories of other peoples; and we do this with selective amnesia when it is convenient. It is high time that the American public begin to grow up, and understand the world beyond the simplistic Good versus Bad and Right versus Wrong. And I hope that the pro-Independence camp in and outside of Taiwan takes a recess from their own delusional rhetoric and calmly dissect the true issues involved in the relationship between China and Taiwan. In the end, they should realize that national sovereignty is absolutely not negotiable, whether they like it or not; and when push comes to shove, China will act, much to the detriment and well being of the people of Taiwan. At the very least, if these pro-Independence elements wish to rely on the will of the United States to politically bankroll their adventurism, perhaps they need to first take out an American textbook and study the motives and origins of the American Civil War. Then they will realize that, even in the greatest of all democracies, the issue of national sovereignty and territorial integrity are both still completely non-negotiable. If they so insist on not "living under China", then they can always apply to emigrate from Taiwan. Both Taiwan and China will no doubt benefit immensely from their "exodus".
Michael Lou
Milton, Massachusetts (Jan 30, '04)

While long-winded and presented in a new spin, Henry Liu's arguments against Taiwanese independence in the article Forget reunification, nothing to reunite , Jan 30, are nothing but tired old rhetoric in line with Chinese propaganda. Fundamentally, China's argument against Taiwanese independence rests on the pillar of the mantra "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, period." From this pillar grow fanciful arguments from language and historical ties to international recognition. Henry Liu's arguments are no different. He also must rest his argument on the same mantra. The biggest problem for Henry Liu and for China is that there is no way to defend and explain this "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China" mantra logically. How is it inalienable? Why is it a part of China? Why is it more inalienable then the lost territories in the Soviet Far East? How is it a part of China when the total number of years Taiwan and China were united under a single Han Chinese-controlled government over the last 500 years was only five years? When we start asking the questions, we find that the logic is no longer there, then the mantra is brought out: because Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. Henry Liu has spent six long and tedious articles to get to this point. He needed, and I hoped for, something a little more substantial. All I got was the same tired old rhetoric: because Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. Mr Henry Liu, I can go on the People's Daily and read that every single day. Furthermore, the Hawaii analogy forged into Liu's article would actually work in favor of Taiwan had he actually thought through the entire analogy. In his analogy, the state legislature acts to create an illegal secession from the United States. However, this is in no way parallel to Taiwan. What would be parallel to a Taiwan-China situation would be a scenario in which the national government of the United States loses a civil war and the entire government is forced to relocate to the state of Hawaii. In its place on the American mainland is a new country called the People's Republic of America. The United States on Hawaii, although much smaller, remains a sovereign nation. Even if it gives up the claim to the whole of America and eventually changes its name, it remains sovereign. And it will remain a sovereign nation wholly outside of the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of America. This is the actual analogy if carried to its logical end point, as we can all see, and it only goes to demonstrate that Taiwan, as a sovereign nation, carries a right within itself to elect its own leaders and vote in its own referendums.
Dr Tzu-Hsiu Tseng
Los Angeles, California (Jan 30, '04)

I see that [Henry C K] Liu's articles on Taiwan are hitting some sore spots in the US. This was to be expected since there are those who have never given up hope that the Nationalist Chinese army would someday be exhumed, revived, and given more deadly help from the US than before so the entire problem of China - two Chinas? Taiwan democracy? - could be solved to our satisfaction here. As Mr Liu reported, history shows that the island of Taiwan has been Chinese for a long time - longer by far than Puerto Rico has been the bastard child of the US. How anyone could argue with this is beyond comprehension. Why they want to argue about it is an interesting question. Henry C K Liu remains, as always, a marvelous writer and thinker and I appreciate being able to read some of his works.
Megan Sweet
Oregon (Jan 30, '04)

This article continues [Henry C K] Liu's arguments against Taiwan independence, but goes further to attempt to undermine the legality and legitimacy of the democratic developments in Taiwan. In typical pro-China or "greater China" ideology, the article idolizes mainland-born ROC [Republic of China] presidents (Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo) who were believers in the "greater China" ideology, and vilify the Taiwan-born ROC presidents (Lee Tung-hui and Chen Shui-bian) who are believers in "Taiwan independence". But the most egregious aspect of the article is that the long paragraphs of historical and legal arguments serve only to provide rationale for the punchline of the article, which is an all-out attempt to undermine the legality and legitimacy of the Taiwan-born ROC presidents and their policies. Mr Liu (and other pro-China authors) are so obsessed in arguing against Taiwan independence that they are either out of touch or in denial of the current political realities in Taiwan. This political reality is simple. Taiwan is a democracy, and the rulers of Taiwan are the people of Taiwan, not the KMT [Kuomintang] as the author would like to believe. In the end, it is the people of Taiwan who will decide the direction of their future.
John Wang
Massachusetts (Jan 30, '04)

I am flabbergasted by the pro-nationalistic views that [Henry C K] Liu has recently expressed in his columns about Taiwan and China. I agree with some readers who have pointed out the all-important fact that the people of Taiwan have been living as a democracy and deserve the right to decide their own future. Should they pass the referendum for autonomy, I don't see what legitimacy the People's Republic would have on their decision, with the exception of legitimacy forced at the tip of missiles. The Communist Party has done enough to ravage its own territory already through its Cultural Revolution and repressive regime. I am quite sure the people of Taiwan don't want all that. What's next on Mr Liu's agenda? Perhaps he will try to show us irrevocable evidence that Tibet belongs to China too. I wonder what argument he will use there, for the people of Tibet are historically a different race with a different language, script and religion.
Vivek Sharma
India (Jan 30, '04)

In Henry Liu's article Forget reunification, nothing to reunite , he argues that it would be illegal for Taiwan to amend its constitution without the consent of the people of China. However, the Chinese Communist Party has amended the constitution of the People's Republic of China several times since 1949 without either the consent of the people of China or the people of Taiwan. By his own logic, Mr Liu must therefore think that the constitution of the PRC is illegal, and the government of the PRC is illegitimate. Mr Liu also argues that national elections in Taiwan are illegal because they do not include participation of the people of China. By the same reasoning, Mr Liu must think that the leaders of the PRC are not legitimate because they were not selected by either the people of China or the people of Taiwan. Mr Liu is doing a reasonably good job of advocating Beijing's position, although the more clearly he advocates Beijing's position, the more logical errors are apparent in it.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (Jan 30, '04)

Jan 31, 2004

No material from Asia Times Online may be republished in any form without written permission.

Privacy and Legal Policies