China’s Scotland analogy supports Taiwanese sovereignty

By Michael Riches

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Wang Wenbin on Aug. 11 compared Taiwanese independence efforts with Scotland’s attempts to split from the UK.

Scotland held a referendum on independence in 2014, and the result was close. About 45 percent of voters checked the “yes” box to split from the UK. Hoping that the tide has turned in favor of independence, the Scots are angling for a second try.

The Canadian province of Quebec went through two independence votes as well. The first, in 1980, saw the “yes” camp garner about 40 percent of the votes. In 1995, the share climbed to 49.5 percent — although in that case, the "new strategic partnership" described on the ballot left some voters confused about whether an actual split from Canada was on the cards. The Canadian government accepted the ambiguity and campaigned against independence on Quebec's terms.

If Scotland "split itself from the UK, would the UK remain calm, show restraint, sit by and watch the situation deteriorate?” Wang asked.

I have heard a similar argument from Chinese who evoked Quebec’s struggle when discussing Taiwanese sovereignty.

“How would you feel if Quebec separated?” they asked.

Sad, I would reply, but respectful of their decision.

Wang and others in China do not realize how much they are defeating their own claims to Taiwan when they make such comparisons. If they want to draw parallels between Taiwan, Scotland and Quebec, then the Chinese would do as the British and Canadians do, and offer Taiwan a vote on independence — and then be willing to honor the result if (and when) it does not go in their favor. 

Given that the CCP believes Taiwan is Chinese territory, then it should be able to swallow its own analogy and provide its so-called "province" with the same peaceful territorial dispute mechanism that the UK grants Scotland.

Wang asked if the British would show "restraint" and "calm" in the face of losing Scotland. In fact, restraint and calm is exactly what they and the Canadian government did during independence campaigns. Instead of sending in their militaries, the central governments conducted measured campaigns to persuade residents to vote “no” and made their arguments with confidence. 

The UK and Canada may not have “sat by,” to use Wang's words, when faced with separatist campaigns, but they did work to convince their territories to remain united. Neither did they consider sovereignty movements a “deterioration.” Rather, the calls for independence were treated as good-faith appeals for self determination.

In fact, Canada passed a post-referendum law in 2000 that outlined how negotiations should take place if any province voted to separate. They do not use anti-secession laws, which would be abhorrent to Canadian and British values.

Wang should realize that Canada and the UK have indeed demonstrated how to “remain calm” in the face of separatist campaigns. Granting the privilege to leave is in fact what fosters goodwill and makes the population feel valued. The hostility shown toward Taiwan, on the other hand, has not exactly cultivated much love. 

Not that Taiwan needs China's permission to be independent, but if Beijing wants to make such comparisons, then by their own argument they should show the same goodwill to Taiwanese and stop making claims on a nation that would overwhelmingly reject Chinese control in a hypothetical referendum.

Perhaps I am naive to say that if China truly cared about the people of this nation, it would put its ego aside and offer Taiwanese the same dignity that the UK and Canada offer its people. 

Of course, I understand why that would never happen, and I am aware of the multitude historical and cultural issues that emerge when that surface is scratched.

But any time a Chinese leader or pundit compares Taiwan with Scotland or Quebec, they sound ridiculous. Canada and the UK learned long ago how to settle nationhood disputes peacefully, an approach China has yet to attempt with Taiwan.

US only after its own interests in Taiwan

By Michael Riches

Like a bull in a china shop, the second in line to the US presidency barreled through the nation, departing as suddenly as she arrived, expecting Taiwan to deal with the aftermath.

The US has called China’s response to the visit “provocative” and “irresponsible.” One could have said the same about the Aug. 2 drop-in by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi. China’s simulated blockade and missile firings over Taipei, rather than being “provocative,” would be better described as “entirely predictable.”

Pelosi’s overnight layover had no stated purpose. It was left for Taiwanese to read between the lines and view the visit as symbolic, a way of letting China know “who’s boss.” It was an extravagant game of “I dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder,” except Pelosi put the chip on Taiwan’s shoulder and fled.

At a news conference with President Tsai Ing-wen at the Legislative Yuan on Aug. 3, Samson Ellis of Bloomberg News told Pelosi that Taiwan has paid a cost for her visit, and “is likely to continue to do so over the coming days and weeks.”

Ellis asked: “What concrete, tangible benefits can you promise Taiwan to offset the cost of your trip?”

Pelosi could name none in her rambling answer. The most she could muster at the beginning of her response was that the US “has just passed the chips and science act,” something not contingent on her visit, implying that the “good economic exchanges” she continually referred to in the remainder of her reply could be undone if Taiwan becomes difficult in its relationship with the superpower.

Anyone who views the US as Taiwan’s friend should remember that partnership with a world power is always conditional. Taiwan supplies its protector with much-needed semiconductor chips and buys its weapons in return. That is the gist of Taiwan’s meaning to the US.

More than that, keeping Taiwan out of the hands of China is essential to US interests in the Indo-Pacific region. If it were not, Taiwan’s “freedom and democracy” would be of no significance. Witness Iran in 1953, Brazil in 1964, Indonesia in 1965, Chile in 1970, Argentina in 1976, Ukraine in 2014 — each having a democratically elected government overthrown with US involvement simply because they stopped playing ball with the West.

Even Western allies are not immune from US meddling. The Australian Financial Review uncovered covert CIA participation in successful efforts in 1975 to remove Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam from power. Former CIA contractor Christopher Boyce later supported the claim, saying that Whitlam’s plans to close US military bases threatened US interests in the region.

The pieces being played on this board have nothing to do with Washington's concern for Taiwan’s freedom, democracy or human rights, or Beijing's fond regard for Taiwan’s historical significance to the motherland. The game is all about the US and China preventing each other from establishing military outposts in Taiwan.

Hawaii provides a comparative example. The US annexed the country in 1898 for the islands’ strategic importance in the Spanish-American War. US business stakes in Hawaii aided efforts to oust the royal family, who by all accounts were providing well for their people, but were also curbing foreign capitalist influence on the nation’s values.

The illegal US takeover was all about money and military might, not freedom or democracy.

Annexation of Hawaii has given the US — and the West by extension — invaluable influence and jurisdiction throughout the Pacific. “Occupation” of Taiwan would extend that domination right up to China’s doorstep.

I do not support China’s claim to Taiwan, but it takes a certain degree of blindness to think that Beijing would not do its utmost to prevent an enemy superpower from establishing bases 180km away across the strait — something that would surely follow from Taiwanese independence.

Being a vassal state of the US would certainly be a more favorable situation for Taiwan than being absorbed by China. However, Taiwanese should not be naive about what the US wants.

Washington is beating the drums of war in the strait as loudly as Beijing, and Taiwan is simply a pawn. Pelosi, as a rook on this chessboard, engaged in a selfish ploy to burnish her legacy by demonstrating that she alone could goad China into encircling Taiwan and setting off thousands of tonnes of gunpowder.

Washington might try to pass off the fireworks as a celebration of freedom and democracy, but those watching the missiles fly over their homeland should at least be skeptical of US intentions.