[Marxism] Re: Is Taiwanese Independence Progressive?

["Tony Lawless" <lifesunquietdream@xxxxxxx>]

Richard Fidler wants to suggest that the right of a nation to
self-determination is the most important factor in working out an approach
to the Taiwan issue. I agree.

But the most salient feature of this situation is not the right of Taiwan to
self-determination but rather that same right for the People?s Republic of
China. This right to self-determination has been opposed first by Japanese
and then by US imperialism.

In trying to make a case for Taiwanese self-determination, Richard is thus
forced to ignore the internal class dynamics of the situation as well as the
placement of the situation within a world dominated by great power
relations.

Let me explain.

Like the comparable case of Korea, the People?s Republic of China has the
right to self-determination. In other words, it has the right to complete
its bourgeois-democratic revolution, re-forging the lost unity of the
Chinese nation. This unity was first broken in 1895, after Chinese defeat in
the Sino-Japanese War. This date marks the kick-off for the attempt of Japan
to impose its imperialist will on East Asia.

Richard obscures that dynamic when he suggests that ?China?s claim to Taiwan
is rather weak; the Beijing government ruled Taiwan for barely five years in
the last 110 years.? By stating his case in this way, Richard obscures the
real reason for the absence of Chinese rule: first, the Japanese imperialist
occupation of Formosa/Taiwan and subsequently, the US intervention on the
side of the Chinese counterrevolutionaries to prevent national
reunification.

Part of the reason Richard does this is that he believes that ?it should be
kept in mind that Japan?s rule in Taiwan between 1895 and 1945 was
relatively benign compared to its brutal occupation of Manchuria and other
parts of China during the 1930s and 1940s.?

But Japanese imperialist rule elsewhere in East Asia is not the appropriate
yardstick to measure Japanese imperialist rule in Taiwan. The correct
measure is the previous rule from the Chinese mainland. And there is
historical evidence that the local Taiwanese population preferred that rule,
as might well be expected.

For example, according to Su Kaiming, in his book Modern China: A Topical
History (Beijing: New World Press, 1985): ?Japan?s annexation of Taiwan met
determined resistance from the local population. Yosburo Takekoshi, a
Japanese chronicler, writes: ?Whenever our troops were defeated, the
inhabitants of the surrounding villages instantly became our enemies, every
one, even the young women, arming and joining the ranks with shouts of
defiance. Our opponents were very stubborn and not at all afraid of death.?
Only be fighting a cruel war for almost eight years against guerillas and
wide popular opposition did Japan impose control over Taiwan? (60-1).

(There are other problems with the argument that Japanese rule in Taiwan was
?relatively benign?. At the end of the article, I include a newspaper
account that documents the right wing logic of such an approach to the issue
of imperialist occupation in relation to the issue of Taiwanese comfort
women. What we need to ask when trying to measure relative benignity is: for
which class? For which gender was Japanese rule ?relatively benign??)

These class dynamics, however, play no role in Richard?s account of
Taiwanese history. Instead, he obscures the dynamics of Chinese
self-determination by presenting both major classes in the Chinese
Revolution as potential or actual foreign invaders of Taiwan and leaving out
the key role of the United States in supporting the forces of the
counter-revolution.

Richard does this by suggesting that the ?five years under Kuomintang rule
(1945-49) were characterized by massive repression of the Taiwanese?. But he
neglects to mention that rule under the Kuomintang for the mainland Chinese
workers and peasants was also marked by massive repression. It was only the
victory of the Chinese Revolution that ended that repression on the
mainland; the ability of the counter-revolutionary forces to re-group on
Taiwan was made possible by the existence of a major body of water, the
Taiwan straits?and the intervention of the United States on the side of the
Taiwanese counter-revolutionaries.

Compare Richard?s account with that of the US China scholar, Maurice
Meisner. In his book, Mao?s China and After: A History of the People?s
Republic third edition (New York; The Free Press, 1999), Meisner writes:

?A matter of far greater concern was the occupation of Taiwan by the
defeated Guomindang regime, for this not only left unfinished the task of
territorial unification but also the civil war. Communist preparation to
invade Taiwan, apparently planned for the summer of 1950, were frustrated by
President Truman?s order of June 27 sending the United States Seventh Fleet
to ?neutralize? the Taiwan Strait. The pretext for intervention was the
outbreak of the Korean War. The latter was no more than a pretext, for the
Chinese were neither involved in the Korean conflict until General
MacArthur?s ill-fated ?March to the Yalu? directly threatened Chinese
borders, nor was there any satisfactory explanation of what the Taiwan
situation had to do with the war in Korea. Indeed, when the truce ending the
Korean hostilities was signed in July of 1953, the ?neutralization? of the
straits of Taiwan remained in effect. The de facto United States military
protectorate over Taiwan allowed the Nationalist regime to linger on and
represent itself in international councils as the government of China. And
the United States established another base in the military cordon it was
establishing around China, in a ring from Korea from Southeast Asia? (66).

Richard suggests that ?to some degree I think the question of Taiwanese
independence, like any national question, should also be approached in terms
of its own dynamics?.

But in approaching that question ?in terms of its own dynamics?, he thereby
obscures both the class dynamics of the question and the inter-imperialist
aspect?working with an independent dynamic that only a few in Taiwan along
with their international supporters would agree with.

(Unlike Richard, for example, the members of the pro-independence party in
Taiwan regularly include aspects of international great power relations in
their account: they openly endorse the previous domination of East Asia by a
brutal Japanese imperialism, which helps explain why they want to visit
Japanese war shrines where the remains of Class A war criminals are kept.)

Thus, with Richard?s account, all we are left with is an anodyne ?right to
self-determination? for a ?nation? that no country in the world has ever
recognized diplomatically, except as a reactionary substitute for the proper
diplomatic recognition of the People?s Republic of China itself.


Taiwan?s comfort women had best possible job: Chen adviser
By Annie Huang, Associated Press, Hong Kong Mail 24 February 2001

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/521.html

TAIPEI: Angry lawmakers demanded yesterday that Taiwan?s president dismiss
an adviser who reportedly said that working as World War II sex slaves for
Japan?s military was the best possible thing for many Taiwanese women.

Hsu Wen-lung allegedly made the comment during an interview with Yoshinori
Kobayashi, whose new best-selling cartoon book about the island?s history
includes interviews with prominent Taiwanese figures deemed sympathetic to
Japan.

The chairman of the Chi Mei plastics company was quoted in the book Taiwan
Discourse as saying some of the sex slaves or comfort women chose the job to
escape poverty and, unlike other prostitutes, they could save money and work
under strict hygiene standards.

It was the best possible thing to happen to them, Mr Hsu was quoted as
saying.

The book features a picture of smiling Taiwanese women eagerly lining up in
front of a Japanese officer who is recruiting sex slaves.

Each person was full of hope while enlisting in the Japanese army. Who was
forced to join? a caption beside the picture says.

Taiwan newspapers quoted Kobayashi, who is also a social commentator, as
saying he taped the conversation with Mr Hsu and could verify it. Mr Hsu?s
office said he was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The book does not quote the hundreds of former comfort women who have said
their lives were ruined because they were forced to work as sex slaves.

Many elderly Taiwanese have fond memories of Japan, recalling the social
order and economic well-being when the island was a Japanese colony between
1896 and 1945.

But legislators demanded the Taiwanese publisher of the local version of
Taiwan Discourse recall the book from shops, saying it distorted history and
was full of Japanese militarist theories.

Lee Ching-hua, from the opposition People First Party, tore the book in half
at a news conference and demanded that President Chen Shui-bian dismiss Mr
Hsu as his adviser.

Wang Ching-feng, a lawyer who has led a campaign to demand an official
Japanese apology to the sex slaves, said most of the Asian women were forced
into taking the job or were first offered work as nurses.

A sex slave was forced to sleep with 29 soldiers a day on average, with some
360,000 women drafted to serve the three million soldiers fighting on the
mainland and in Southeast Asia, Ms Wang said.

After the war ended, when the sex slaves returned home, many were too
ashamed to get married or were incapable of giving birth, she said.

In the book, Mr Hsu was also quoted as saying he believed Japan launched the
war against China in 1937 as a retaliatory move because the Chinese had
killed many Japanese in northeastern China.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism