The recent cancellation of a concert by Taiwanese pop-star A-mei (張惠妹) in Hangzhou caused a strong reaction in Taiwan. Taiwanese Internet users are now trying to initiate boycotts of Chinese and Hong Kong artists to stop them from performing in Taiwan. Given the tense cross-strait situation, people on either side of the Taiwan Strait trying to intensify the antagonistic mood does not help China's anti-independence, pro-unification efforts.
Although the incident may have been the result of an independent action by some people in China, and although it was described as an "isolated incident" by China's Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO), it reflected the fact that both officials and the general public in China still do not understand Taiwan and take a simplistic and rigid approach to cross-strait issues. It also showed that the relevant Chinese authorities have neglected to direct the general public's understanding of the complexity of the Taiwan issue and to inform them of the correct ways to treat the people of Taiwan.
This has led a minority of people in China to confuse populism with patriotism. We all know that A-mei is a very popular singer in Taiwan. Her recent experience will undoubtedly deepen suspicion and dislike of China among the people in Taiwan in general and the younger generation in particular. It seems it is not a mere "isolated incident."
Beijing recently declared that it does not welcome "green" businesspeople coming to China to make money only to bring it back to Taiwan to support Taiwan's independence. But the Taiwanese public at large should not be labelled "green" for every little action.
There is still no evidence that A-mei is as staunch a proponent of Taiwan's independence as Hsu Wen-lung (許文龍). The only indication of her green leanings is the fact that she sang the national anthem at Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) 2000 inauguration.
A-mei is only an Aboriginal girl who likes to sing -- she has probably not formed any fixed political beliefs. Even if she is guilty of some small impropriety, is could be treated as a matter of increasing mutual understanding within the framework for cross-strait cultural exchanges. After all, she is still very young.
In fact, when handling things for other people, we must consider the other party's situation and feelings instead of labelling anyone who doesn't meet the PRC's description as an enemy. Consider A-mei's situation -- when the Taiwanese authorities asked her to sing her national anthem, how could she refuse?
Although some people in Taiwan support independence, the people of China should understand and forgive them. A Taiwanese friend once told me that "China must understand and forgive the people of Taiwan, treat them with tolerance and magnanimity, and understand the hardship of being the orphan of Asia.
"Apart from a few politicians with ulterior motives, China must show tolerance towards those who may have shouted slogans in support of Taiwan independence in the past and not further investigate them. This, and only this, is the behavior of a great nation with concern for its own people," he said.
The song A-mei sang four years ago was the National Anthem of the Republic of China (ROC). She was punished for doing so, and could not perform in China for a few years. This is related to the way China deals with the so-called Taiwan issue. The majority of the Taiwanese people to this day still identify with the ROC, Beijing has to handle this sensitive and complex issue satisfactorily if it is to win the hearts and minds of the people in Taiwan.
There are some contradictions, however. On the one hand, Beijing cannot tolerate any name that includes "ROC" or the appearance of any of its symbols, such as national flag or anthem, but on the other hand, it opposes the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government's writing a new constitution and getting rid of the ROC's national title, flag and anthem. I have still not heard of any measures by Beijing attempting to explain and solve these contradictions.
From a legal perspective, there was a transfer of government power on Chinese soil in 1949, and in 1971, the UN recognized the People's Republic of China as China's only legal government. From that moment on, the ROC was no longer a sovereign nation with the accorded legal status, and thus, can no longer be treated as a complete international entity. There is no legal basis for calling the ROC a sovereign and independent state. It is completely legitimate for the PRC to oppose "two Chinas" in the international arena, the "state-to-state" model and the "one country on each side" approach to the cross-strait relationship.
From a realist point of view, although the old Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government was defeated, it wasn't annihilated. Due to many reasons, it continued to exist and develop under the name of the ROC in what I view as one of China's provinces. Although it is no longer a sovereign state, it still controls a part of what I believe is China's territory and people, and it also maintains some ability to handle diplomatic relations. This is an objective fact that Beijing cannot refute.
More importantly, the ROC is the only political symbol of Taiwan's historical identification with China. If the Taiwanese do away with the ROC, they can only identify with Taiwan. Beijing has consistently opposed the appearance of the national title "ROC" and its national flag within the cross-strait relationship framework, and it even opposes all and any appearance of the word "national," "China," and "Central" in names and titles. This has not only hurt the feelings of the people in Taiwan, it has also provided what I like to call the executive authorities in Taiwan with a focus for their desinicization agenda.
In my view, the solution to this problem lies in continued firm opposition to the appearance of the ROC in the international arena and any attempts to create "two Chinas." Within the framework of the cross-strait relationship, however, China should tolerate and respect the people in Taiwan who identify with the ROC. A fuzziness regarding these issues should be tolerated. But publications, documents, meetings and so on where the title, national flag and other ROC symbols appear should not be suppressed in cross-strait exchanges.
The long-term perspective should be that the ROC and the PRC are merely political symbols during a transitional period. There is no need for excessive bickering, and both parties should be unselfish. After all, the ROC is also China. The real problem will only be if the people in Taiwan discard the ROC and change their identity to the Republic of Taiwan.
Zhang Jia-lin is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was former special assistant to Wang Daohan, president of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers