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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US