Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian has in recent months stirred up the calm cross-Straits waters by floating pro-independence slogans like "referendum," and "constitutional amendment."
Faced with opposition from the mainland, the US Government and the majority of Taiwan's population, he has trumpeted a so-called "defensive referendum" to be held on March 20, coinciding with the island's "presidential" election.
The purpose, Chen claims, is to "avoid war, free people from terror and maintain Taiwan's status quo" and to follow the "genuine public opinion" of Taiwan's people. Anyone against this move is promptly accused of "not loving Taiwan."
It amply demonstrates that Chen has elevated himself from an international troublemaker to an out-and-out crisis creator because his "defensive referendum" is in essence a provocation.
A "defensive referendum" challenges the one-China principle. Cloaking himself in the banner of democracy and human rights, Chen has made it known the 2004 referendum is but a first step, with another in 2006 to "stimulate Taiwan's new constitution."
Obviously, his real goal is "Taiwan independence" rather than more democracy. Democracy is only a razor blade that he uses to slice the sausage of "gradual independence." The US State Department spokesman hit it on the head when he said Chen's "defensive referendum" is an act of politics instead of democracy and an attempt to move in "a certain direction," ie "Taiwan independence."
Historical documents and international law show that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The one-China principle is accepted by the international society. Chen's "defensive referendum," for all the gloss of democracy and human rights, defies this principle. The referendum is an attempt to change the status quo. It provokes.
Chen claims that Taiwan is under serious "outside threat," hence a "defensive referendum" to "maintain the current situation." The irony is, in the past three years he has also been telling everyone that cross-Straits relations have been so stable since he came to power that there is absolutely no chance of conflict. So, what's the "current situation?" Stability or potential for crisis? As a matter of fact, the current situation is that Chen is deliberately whipping up a storm to change the status quo. There was no crisis. It has been triggered by his moves towards "Taiwan independence."
The Chinese Government's policy has been peaceful unification based on "One Country, Two Systems." But "independence" means war. Flashing colours of peace while at the same time seeking independence is a slap in the face. It shortens the time for manoeuvring to prevent a war that will disrupt the Straits and the Asia-Pacific region. As Taiwan media pointed out, to maintain peace, Chen has to stop making waves.
The referendum also flouts mainstream opinion rather than expresses it. Polls by Taiwan media show that fewer than 20 per cent of the public supports the idea; around 50 per cent believe that it is Chen's election ploy and therefore oppose it; 60 per cent want to maintain the status quo. What Taiwan people want the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration to do is improve cross-Straits relations, open the "Three Direct Links," balance the budget and reduce unemployment.
Chen uses a minority opinion to override the majority opinion, warping it so much that nobody in their right mind can believe his tall tales. That, in part, accounts for his consistent 40 per cent approval rating in the past two years.
The referendum is an election gamble that uses the security of the Taiwan people as chips. Chen started seeking re-election as soon as he came into office, a fact noted by the US-based Newsweek two years ago. In February, the Kuomintang (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) joined hands in a "presidential" bid, and according to media polls, they led by 10 percentage points, placing Chen at a disadvantage.
Chen, always politics-oriented, has turned in a poor job performance: economic growth has slowed; the jobless rate has edged up from 3 to 5 per cent; gross domestic product per capita has backtracked to 1996 levels; stock market capitalization has shrunk by half; the wealth gap is the widest in 40 years; reforms of education, justice and anti-corruption are stalled; the cross-Straits relationship is in a stalemate; international isolation has increased; his job as a military commander has amounted to nothing; vows to resolve social enmity are replaced by more intense hatred along the lines of home province origins, ethnicity and political parties. The chasm has gotten deeper and wider.
With such a report card, Chen has to resort to a "referendum" and "constitutional amendment" to create political bonding and divert public attention. Chen figures that, if he can shift the campaign focus from public policy to the debate on "Taiwan's future," the electorate will no longer care about the character of the candidates, but instead about confrontations between those who "love Taiwan" and those who "sell it out." This strategy can mobilize his core supporters. The subsequent uptick in his favour has firmed up his choice.
Since the "referendum law" did not pass as he had wished, Chen started to play the "defensive referendum" game so as to antagonize the mainland and create a derring-do "heroic" image. If the mainland reacts strongly, it would help shore up his support base; if the response is lukewarm, he could push independence a step forward. If the United States and the Chinese mainland both oppose his action, that would give him the opportunity to mould himself into a "tragic hero" who resists foreign forces and "fights Communism and the United States." If the KMT-PFP alliance takes a stance against it, he would readily stick a label of "anti-Taiwan, anti-democracy traitors" on them. That's a classic case of killing two birds with one stone.
The "defensive referendum" is designed to induce crisis. Referendum, as an expression of democracy, is applied to situations in which two opposing opinions cannot be resolved with a consensus. The referendum convention follows the situation, then determines the topic, and finally sets the time schedule.
Chen Shui-bian has reversed this procedure. He has taken a "referendum law," which is not the version he would have liked to pass, then selected clauses that can be manipulated and set the agenda to correspond to his election schedule. "Making something out of it" has become the final straw that would make his election campaign and break that of his opponents.
As a New York Times editorial said, "Putting these issues to a vote would be gratuitously provocative." Taiwan media have also remarked that the referendum would exacerbate internal difficulties. "The first missile targeting Taiwan's sensitive area would not come from the mainland, but from Chen. He proclaims to cement public opinion and then, in action, runs counter to it, which may lead to an earlier face-off across the Straits. His theory of deepening democracy would ultimately be the cruelest betrayal of the Taiwan people," wrote one commentator.
What's worrying is Chen's obstinacy in pushing on along the path of "defensive referendum." He may well put forward slogans like "preserve domestic sovereignty" and "love Taiwan" to incite independence seekers, and others like "Communist suppression" and "missile threat" to strain the cross-Straits relationship. He may even stir up a small-scale military conflict when he finds it necessary to establish the raison d'etre for his actions.
In the final analysis, Chen is not only a troublemaker, but also a crisis creator.
People everywhere, including those on either side of the Taiwan Straits, should be vigilant.
The author is a researcher at the Institute of Taiwan Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
(China Daily December 26, 2003)
