Opinion
China, Taiwan and Tibet: Fraying at the edges
–The Economist
In neither Tibet nor Taiwan are things going as well for China as its leaders would like
![]() |
IT HAS been a good few days for the self-esteem of China’s leaders.
Their hopes of winning acceptance for their view of Tibet and of
coaxing Taiwan into the embrace of the “motherland” both seem to have
become a little more likely. But look closer. In fact both remain
distant dreams.
As President Hu Jintao was feted at the G8 summit in Japan,
China secured two important affirmative RSVPs to the opening of the
Olympic games in Beijing next month. George Bush was never likely to be
a party-pooper. But France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had suggested
his attendance hinged on China’s behaviour in Tibet. He, too, will turn
up, bearing tribute to China’s growing sporting, commercial and
diplomatic clout.
Over Taiwan, the progress is more than symbolic. The opening of
regular charter flights across the Taiwan Strait, allowing thousands of
mainland tourists to visit the island, is the most important of a
number of confidence-building measures since the victory of Ma
Ying-jeou and his China-leaning party, the Kuomintang (KMT), in the
presidential election in March. After the bellicose sniping at the
pro-independence administration of Chen Shui-bian, China seems
positively lovey-dovey towards his successor.
On Tibet, China appears to have won over foreign governments by
making only the most token of concessions. It has reopened low-level
talks with representatives of the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual
leader. But it has barely even pretended that these might lead to a
political settlement. At the latest round it refused even to issue an
anodyne joint statement, lest this be deemed to accord its Tibetan
interlocutors some sort of official status. In Tibet it has quelled
unrest and dissent with the time-honoured repression it knows best:
mass detention, heavy security and “patriotic education campaigns”.
China can boast that “calm” has returned.
The calm of the prison yard, however, is no long-term solution
to the Tibet problem, which is that large numbers of Tibetans feel
economically disadvantaged and politically ignored. Order imposed
through violence, or the threat of violence, will only heighten
pro-independence sentiment.
The same holds true for Taiwan, even during the present
honeymoon. China has never renounced what it says is its right to take
Taiwan by force if peaceful blandishments fail. Adding weight to the
threat are hundreds of missiles trained on Taiwan. Such bullying helps
ensure that a huge majority in Taiwan opposes imminent unification. The
vote in March was indeed partly a reaction to the recent cross-strait
tensions, and an endorsement of closer economic ties with the mainland
at a time of faltering growth. But the KMT won not because it was
promising unification, but because it seemed to have the better tactics
for perpetuating Taiwan’s de facto independence.
Sovereign remedies
Chinese officials understand that well enough. But in helping
generate popular euphoria around the latest “breakthroughs” with
Taiwan, they are taking a risk. Taiwan is a big unfinished nationalist
project at a time when Chinese nationalism is gaining potency. The
anger recently directed at foreigners over their criticism of China’s
behaviour in Tibet could turn on China’s own government. Its present
policy relies on Taiwan’s refraining from any “provocation”. This is
dangerously fragile: better to make clear that “reunification” is a
long-term goal, to be achieved, if at all, through peaceful means. As
with Tibet, that means being ready to show a little flexibility over
that most sensitive of issues, sovereignty. China’s emergence, as
symbolised by the Olympics, will otherwise continue to be hampered by
the instability in its own backyard.
(The article is reproduced from the
online edition of The Economist, www.economist.com, published 10 July
2008. The views expressed here are solely those of the writer and they
do not reflect or endorsed by those of the Central Tibetan
Administration.)