Taiwan-of-the-World

By Garry Davis

It is democratic-more or less.

Now China is threatening Taiwan with war if it doesn't "return" to the "motherland." But Taiwan is an island, with 90 miles of water separating it and the mainland. And in terms of political philosophy, that 90 miles might as well be 3000.

In 1776, King George III also wanted the American colonists to "return" to the "motherland," but there were 3000 miles between the colonies and England. No way! The Declaration of Independence eloquently spelled out why.

As a hangover from the complex past (which this article cannot discuss in detail), Taiwan's government is known as the "Republic of China." Ah, there's the rub! On the mainland-China proper-there is another government called "The People's Republic of China."

One wonders, globally speaking, why the people of Taiwan cling to a name which, in fact, does not represent them. While it is confused and embarrassed by "The Republic of China" designation, the world would surely accept "The Republic of Taiwan."

In short, the current, backward-looking claim is virtually indefensible. It is as if the American colonists claimed in 1776 to be Great Britain's government-in-exile.

Besides, over 90 percent of the Taiwanese, albeit ethnic Chinese in language and mores, have never even been to China.

They were born on Taiwan. More signifi-cantly still, they were born first into the world community! And given the recent modernization of their industry, communications and political ideology, they are intensely eager to recognize that primal fact.

Given our interdependent world, they want to "go global."

The leaders in Beijing, however, without consulting their 1.4 billion citizens, declare that the citizens of Taiwan must not hold a democratic election for president. They claim that such a vote would be a concrete sign of Taiwan's "independence" from China. It's a causum belli, they add.

But hold on. Don't people have a right to decide their own political destiny? Isn't that codified in the Constitutions of both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China as well as in the U.N. Charter and numerous international conventions? Indeed, the Constitution of the PRC claims that the "people" are sovereign. So does the Constitution of the ROC. The two parties agree, then, that the people have the right to decide whether to hold an election or not.

And here is the crux of the problem. Though in theory its people are sovereign, Communist China grants no electoral voice to its citizens. So when tiny Taiwan puts democratic political theory to practice, the Beijing hardliners are confronted with a dilemma: either let Taiwan go its distinct way, or claim it as a "rebel province" that has broken away from its only proper government. The major nations' abject surrender in 1971 to China's claim over Taiwan-mainly for economic reasons-resulted in the island's diplomatic isolation, including, incidentally, nonrecognition of its official travel documents.

Both Taiwan and China are heavily armed. And while no one wants war, national pride and precedent often dictate events, regardless of common sense and wisdom.

Ironically, China and Taiwan enjoy a brisk trade with one another. Taiwan, one of the "tigers" of the Pacific Rim along with Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea, has a $21 billion-plus investment in mainland China, while China's phenomenal economic growth promises it super-state status in the 21st century.

With Beijing's "One China" policy intimidating most major nations into not acknowledging Taiwan's "independence," the people of Taiwan are desperately seeking direct recognition from the world's people themselves via world citizenship. They are also very interested in many world citizen programs, such as mundialization, the World Syntegrity Project and general global identification services. This is a historic breakthrough and a dynamic metaphor for other peoples threatened by state violence.

Already, over 900 cities throughout the world have "mundialized"-that is, declared themselves part of the total world community. And many nation-states have included the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the body of their national Constitutions, while ordinary people by the millions have declared themselves World Citizens and been identified as such. Only one state, Japan, has officially renounced belligerency as a national policy, although 20 states have renounced national armies as obsolete. As yet, however, no state has boldly declared itself part of the world "state," i.e., the World Government.

(Ironically, during the San Francisco debates in 1945 regarding whether nations would relinquish part of their sovereignty to the new "United Nations," the Chinese delegate startled the assembly by declaring that China was prepared to make that historic concession.)

It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes. A modern equivalent might be: there are no nationalists in nuclear fallout shelters.

With mammoth China looming over tiny Taiwan and threatening it with annihilation if it doesn't "come home," the Taiwanese are obliged either to submit to the Communists' rule, which they have rejected, or to go global.

Viewed from the moon, that option would be seen as eminently consistent with reality.