Is Advocacy of Reunification "Surrender to Beijing?"

Is Advocacy of Reunification "Surrender to Beijing?"
China Post Editorial
by Bevin Chu
March 8, 2009

Is advocacy of Chinese reunification "surrender to Beijing?"

Hardly. No one on Taiwan advocates "surrender to Beijing." Deep Blue advocates of "zhong ji tong yi" advocate eventual reunification of the Chinese nation on Taipei's terms, not Beijing's. How can that be equated with "surrender to Beijing?"

Taiwan independence demagogues know this. But they also know the best defense is a good offense. They make this specious charge because many Blue Camp politicians will bend over over backwards to disprove it. They make this charge because many Blue Camp politicians can be jerked about like puppets on a string, not just on February 28, but on any day of the year.

Taiwan independence demagogues "reason" that eventual reunification on Taipei's terms is an "Ah Q" pipe dream because the PRC government is "too strong," and the ROC government is "too weak."

Their "reasoning" however, is self-refuting. If anything, it proves too much. If eventual reunification on Taipei's terms is an "Ah Q" pipe dream because the PRC government is "too strong," and the ROC government is "too weak," then Taiwan independence is even more of an Ah Q pipe dream. After all, the PRC government opposes Taiwan independence far more vehemently than it opposes eventual Chinese reunification on the ROC government's terms.

Taiwan independence demagogues further "reason" that "Taiwan must declare independence because Bejing's policies are on the wrong side of history, hence doomed to fail."

Once again their "reasoning" is self-refuting. Once again, it too proves too much. If Bejing's policies are on the wrong side of history, hence doomed to fail, then why must Taiwan declare independence? If Bejing's policies are on the wrong side of history, hence doomed to fail, why not hold out until their policies fail, then reunify on Taipei's terms?

According to a news report in the Nanfang Daily, Pan Qingling, a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Committee has proposed that Beijing phase out the use of simplified Chinese characters and resume the use of traditional Chinese characters within ten years.

Pan gave three reasons for his proposal.

One. The adoption of simplified Chinese characters in the 1950s was too crude. It violated the integrity of Chinese writing, both artistically and scientifically. For example, the traditional Chinese character for "love" includes the character for "heart." Upon simplification, the result is "love without a heart."

Two. Traditional Characters were said to be too complex, too hard to learn, too hard to write, and not conducive to popularization. But today most people use PCs. No matter how complex traditional characters might be, they are now no more difficult to type than simplified characters.

Three. Resuming the use of traditional Chinese characters is beneficial to reunification. The Taiwan region still uses traditional Chinese characters, and refers to them as "standard characters." This has far-reaching implications and exerts a subtle form of pressure on the mainland.

Pan's proposal was an admission that the PRC government was wrong to adopt simplified Chinese characters and the ROC government was right to retain traditional Chinese characters. It was, not to put too fine a point on it, a belated admission that Bejing was on the wrong side of history.

This is not the first time Beijing has been forced to admit that it was wrong and Taipei was right. Nor will it be the last.

Since 1949, the PRC government in Beijing has occupied far more of China's land area, and ruled over far more of China's people than the ROC government in Taipei. But quantity is not quality. Bigger is not necessarily better. And most importantly, might is not right.

In 1949, the PRC government began Maoist collectivization, culminating in the debacle known as the "Great Leap Forward." Economically suicidal policies such as people's communes, agricultural cooperatives, backyard steel furnaces, close cropping, deep plowing, the Great Sparrow Campaign, and countless "five year plans" killed 30 million Chinese via artificially-induced famine.

Three decades later, the PRC government was forced to admit its economic policies were on the wrong side of history, hence doomed to fail. Capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping, inspired by the economic miracle of the Taiwan region under the Two Chiangs, jettisoned Maoist collectivization and implemented free market economic reforms and political liberalization.

So who surrendered to whom?

The PRC government lost to the ROC government in the War over Economic Systems.The PRC government is losing to the ROC government in the War over Chinese Characters. And last but not least, the PRC government will lose to the ROC government in the War over Political Systems. The PRC government will, sooner or later, be forced to implement the ROC's constitutional republicanism and its rule of law.

Who says reunification means "surrender to Beijing?" Closer examination suggests that "zhong ji tong yi" on Taipei's terms, is anything but an "Ah Q" pipe dream. Closer examination suggests that Beijing's "surrender to Taipei," i.e., eventual reunification on Taipei's terms, is an historical inevitability.