In these days, Taiwanese businessmen have been accustomed to the standard prayer given by their not-so-polite Chinese guests: "If you declare independence, we are bound to attack Taiwan." So the latest official version of Chinese White Paper on Taiwan has gone further: "If you postpone the negotiation toward unification, we will resort to military forces."
So far, strangely enough, while none of the presidential candidates in Taiwan has yet demonstrated their willingness to counter Chinese intimidation, only Uncle Sam has stood firm lonely to denounce Chinese distasteful impudence. Asserting unwaveringly that only the Taiwanese have the right to decide their future, American President Bill Clinton has come near declaring his determination to safeguard their right to national self-determination.
Unfortunately, after forty years of orthodox education imposed by the KMT, who claimed to the sole legitimate descent of the Chinese lineage, it is no wonder that the majority of the Taiwanese are still not certain if they and the Chinese belong to the so-called Chinese nation (中華民族) or not. The simplest acid test would be whether they have a mind to share one Chinese nation-state.
And yet, politicians in Taiwan seem reluctant to walk out of the cloud of identity crisis. Giving the fact that both Lien Chan (連戰)and James Soong (宋楚瑜) were both born in China, it is not surprising for them to claim they are Chinese (中國人), whether culturally or/and politically. It is more ominous when the native-born Chen Shue-bian (陳水扁) is ready to accommodate himself to Taiwan as a Chinese (華人) state.
Accordingly, there has been an irony circulating in private: while James Soong has endeavored to keep distance from the issue of "Unification," and Lien Chan has managed to stay away from the intriguing words "One China," Chen Shue-bian has similarly appeared embarrassed in the slightest chitchat of "Independence." Flocking together toward the mythical center, the three presidents hopeful look as if they themselves are the only trustworthy defenders of the status quo.
Meanwhile, they all are busy appeasing to Taiwan's most dangerous neighbor, China. While James Soong's adviser Sau Chong-hai (邵宗海) contends that whoever focuses his campaign attention on the mainland issue is destine to lose, Chiu Yee-jen (邱義仁) from Chen Shue-bian's camp also expresses similar expectation. Initially, Soong had probed into the possibility to win over the support from the pro-independence camp. Being summarily dismissed, his only option is to play down the matter without offering any opportunity to be charged as a fifth column of China.
Jubilantly celebrating that the poll conducted by the US has announced his victory, Chen Shue-bian has repeatedly assured that he would not categorically declare Taiwan's de jure independence. The wide-eyed leaders of the DPP have naively misinterpreted the good-cop and bad-cop play between the White House and the Congress so far as to look apathetic toward the recent Taiwan Security Enhancement Act passed by the House of the Representatives.
Facing DPP's massive retreat, the panic Lien Chan has wasted no time undertaking his own strategic withdrawal from President Lee Den-hui's (李登輝) "State-to-State" doctrine and hastily indicate his eagerness to enter the second phase of the National Unification Programme (國統綱領) toward unification without even any nominal concession from the part of China.
The most devastating sabotage on Lee's grand strategy turns out to be Mainland Affairs Commissioner Su Chi's (蘇起) anxious appeal for immediate retrogression to the oxymoron "One China, Defined Respectively" (一個中國、各自表述) consensus agreed upon in the early 1990s.
The blind spot shared by all three presidential candidates is the single-minded belief that only appeasement can bring peace between Taiwan and China. The unabashedly aggressive White Paper is a heavy blow to them, especially the born-again DPP: Even humbly preaching for the status quo is considered as treacherous pro-independence.
Now that the main stream media has kindly decided to down play the Chinese ultimatum, the intellectuals are consciously muzzled to offer their opinions. If it is unfair to charge the candidates as spineless, it is much less so to characterize the mass as indifferent.
After China has unlashed the dog of war, it seems only Clinton has learned from the Munich Agreement of 1938. After all, who are running for the presidency? Clinton or Chiang Jer-min (江澤民)?