Date: 	Sat, 17 Feb 1996 12:28:14 -1000
From: Stephen E Philion <philion-AT-hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: The Two-China Policy


---While much of the history of the two-China policy described below is 
valid, there is an irony overlooked.  If in Taiwan independent workers' 
movements/unions...were to accumulate power thru organisation of 
Taiwanese workers to the point that Domestic and/or Foreign capital's 
interests were threatened, my money is on the US supporting a Chinese 
invasion of Taiwan to save Taiwan from socialism.  Let's face it, the 
CCP is much closer to Taiwanese capitalists who invest in China because 
Taiwan's environmental laws/environmental movements/labor activsts have 
become too "strong". 

	In 1993, bus drivers in Keelung (the northern port city of 
taiwan) went on a legal strike.  They were fired illegally and because 
the fines imposed on the owner were so little, he paid the fines and 
waited out the storm...The strike, of course, collapsed...During this 
time, the CCP sent over its first delegation of jounalists to take a KMT 
sponsored tour of Taiwan.  The strikers tried to meet with their 
"comrade" journalists, but to no avail.  The represetnatives of the CCP's 
"media organ" were most uncomfortable about meeting these folks, 
especially because the owner of that same bus company was planning on 
investing in transportation projects in Canton...No less uncomfortable 
than the KMT for that matter...

	These taiwanese labor activists and striking workers knew pretty 
well why their comrades in China were not excited about meeting them, not 
to mention greeting them with messages of solidarity...

	At the least, we should be wary of engaging in Hegelian 
depictions of the Chinese state, communist party...only then can we 
delineate the origins of the contadictions embedded in the above story...

steve

On Sat, 17 Feb 1996, SHAWGI TELL wrote:

> 
>      Taiwan or Formosa is a large island off the coast of China, in
> the China Sea, to which the defeated armies of Chiang Kai Shek fled
> in 1949. Chiang Kai Shek's island "Republic of China" remained the
> "representative" of China in the United Nations for more than two
> decades. It even occupied a permanent seat on the Security Council.
> It was given this role by the need of U.S. imperialism to interfere
> with the rise of a strong central state in China, a state which
> could withstand foreign interference and subversion, and safeguard
> its own interests. For over a hundred and fifty years China had
> been forcibly divided by the colonialists and imperialists, and its
> people humiliated and ignominiously reduced to coolies, a source of
> cheap labour worldwide. U.S. imperialism was forced to abandon its
> policy by 1979 when it finally acknowledged the People's Republic
> of China as the sole state of the whole of China.
>      U.S. imperialism had calculated that China's "market
> socialism" and the foreign finance capital pouring into the PRC
> would subvert the Chinese state, creating a weakened China, once
> again subservient to European and North American interests. The
> U.S. imperialists were confident and boasting that the occupation
> of Tien An Men square in April-June of 1989 would force the state
> of the PRC to submit to foreign subversion. This, they hoped, would
> be the prelude to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern
> Europe.
>      To their consternation the PRC state did not collapse, but
> their disappointment was soon assuaged with the disintegration of
> the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. However, for U.S. imperialism
> and others, this was not enough. They calculated that the end of
> the cold war meant China was certainly within their grasp. More
> than ever they wanted to weaken the central state of the PRC. Using
> the hypocrisy of bringing "Western democracy" and "human rights" to
> China they have created one diversion after another. All have
> failed to achieve their goal of subverting the Chinese state. It
> seems almost in exasperation that the U.S. imperialists and others
> have dredged up, once again, a "Two-China" policy. They cannot,
> nonetheless, go back to the fifties and declare Taiwan as the "sole
> representative" of China. That would be laughable. The recognition
> of Taiwan as not being part of China is to grossly interfere in
> China's affairs in order to destabilise the PRC state.
>      It is our opinion that the PRC will not submit to this
> subversion of its state either through the hoax of "Western"
> democracy and human rights or through this bankrupt "two-China
> policy" or "one China-one Taiwan policy." The people of the
> entirety of China can have their dignity, their prosperity, peace
> and future only as an independent people free from outside
> interference, settling their own affairs by themselves. We are
> convinced they will not permit the state of the PRC to be subverted
> in the interests of imperialism and internal reaction. On the
> contrary, they will take the deep-going revolutionary reforms
> necessary in order to pursue their independent path.
> 
> 
> Shawgi Tell
> University at Buffalo
> Graduate School of Education
> V600A8E6-AT-UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------