Chinese Reunification: The Moral High Ground

Chinese Reunification: The Moral High Ground
China Post Editorial
by Bevin Chu
November 17, 2008

Anyone with even a smattering of knowledge about constitutional law, knows that True Blue defenders of the Republic of China (ROC) and zhong ji tong yi (eventual reunification) occupy the legal high ground.

Conversely, anyone with even a smattering of knowledge about constitutional law knows that Pan Green agitators for a would-be "Republic of Taiwan," aptly abbreviated "ROT," and tai du (Taiwan independence) do not have a legal leg to stand on.

But what many Pan Blue defenders of the ROC and eventual reunification fail to realize, is that in addition to occupying the legal high ground, they also occupy the moral high ground.

In other words, defending the ROC and eventual reunification is not merely more practical than agitating for a would-be "Republic of Taiwan," it is also more moral. Champions of Chinese reunification occupy the moral high ground.

One of the most exasperating experiences for True Blue defenders of the Republic of China, is watching as Pale Blue "spokepersons" fecklessly surrender the moral high ground, by apologizing to their Deep Green opponents for defending the Republic of China and eventual reunification.

Don't they realize the Republic of China and eventual reunification need no apologies? Don't they realize that Pan Green agitators for a would-be "ROT" and Taiwan independence are the ones who owe the nation and society abject apologies?

Why do Pale Blue "spokespersons" feel the need to apologize to their Pan Green counterparts?  Why do they feel philosophically disarmed and at a moral disadvantage?

The main reason many Pan Blue "spokespersons" feel philosophically disarmed and at a moral disadvantage when confronted by Pan Green agitators for Taiwan independence, is that these Pan Blue "spokespersons" have internalized a whole slew of false premises.

They have internalized the false premise that "The Republic of China is Taiwan," and that "Taiwan is the Republic of China."

In other words, they have ceased being Pan Blue defenders of the Republic of China and become Pale Green supporters of du tai, i.e., an "independent Taiwan" hiding behind a Republic of China mask.

They have internalized the false premise that "The Republic of China has a population of 23 million citizens," rather than 1.3 billion citizens.

In other words, they have unilaterally disenfranchised 1.3 billion of their fellow citizens without consulting them, without first asking them whether they wish to remain Republic of China citizens. Don't these 1.3 billion Republic of China citizens have a say in the matter of their own future?

Pan Greens argue on the one hand that Beijing has no moral legitimacy because it violates human rights. Pan Greens argue on the other hand that 1.3 billion Republic of China citizens who have fallen under Beijing's control must accept this morally illegitimate regime as their duly instituted government.

The proper response to this is: By what right?

Pale Blue "spokespersons" who surrender to this Pan Green premise have, according to Pan Green logic, thrown their fellow citizens to the wolves.  

The Republic of China government in Taipei, according to the Republic of China Constitution that every Republic of China President is constitutionally obligated to uphold, is the sole legitimate government of China, including the Chinese mainland. This means ironically, that any ruling Republic of China administration, even one formed by the separatist Democratic Progressive Party, must assume the legal obligation to contest the Chinese Communist Party's rule in Beijing.

The Republic of China government was founded in 1911. The Peoples' Republic of China government was founded in 1949. The Republic of China government has seniority. The Peoples Republic of China government, from the Republic of China's perspective, is a Johnny Come Lately, a pretender to the throne.

The Republic of China government, as arguably the more legitimate government of China, has the moral and legal obligation to promote the General Welfare of her citizens, not merely 23 million on Taiwan, but 1.3 billion on the mainland and 6 million in Hongkong to boot. Any criticisms a Republic of China President might direct against Beijing, providing he acknowledges the "One China Principle," would fall under the category of domestic policy debate between rival Chinese political leaders.

To defend eventual reunification is not "surrendering to tyranny." It is an act of moral courage. It is seizing the moral high ground. To agitate for Taiwan independence on the other hand, is an abdication of moral responsibility.

A Nobel Peace Prize and a place in history as a visionary peacemaker, alongside Willy Brandt and Kim Dae Jung await any ROC President who has the the guts to defy separatist hate-mongers and to seize this "dangerous opportunity."

The attitude of Pan Green agitators for Taiwan independence can be summed up as, "We don't give a damn about the fate of 1.3 billion fellow citizens on the mainland. They're nothing to us."

Now that is moral cowardice. That is surrender to tyranny. That is the moral low ground.

Defending the Republic of China and eventual reunification is not merely more practical than agitating for a would-be "Republic of Taiwan," it is also more moral. Champions of Chinese reunification occupy the moral high ground.