Taiwan has yet to become a normal, complete and beautiful great nation. It is different from other "normal" nations in that its people generally seem to lack a sense of patriotism. Indeed, "patriotism" is a term that has fallen into disuse in Taiwan, and it only ever appears in connection with a small number of fringe groups. Other than its existence in the name of items on the arms-procurement bill, the term "patriot" is not seen in the mainstream media, nor do we hear of people winning respect for being patriots.
There may be several reasons why there are neither patriots nor patriotism in Taiwan.
First is the issue of national identity. Questions that could be asked include: "Which country do I live in?" and "Which country should patriots be loyal to?" An answer is difficult to come by, and extremely protective groups on each side of the political spectrum accuse each other of destroying the nation. People claiming to safeguard the Republic of China believe that the threat comes from within, while people who claim to "love Taiwan" believe that apart from them, no one else loves Taiwan.
The logic of this domestic infighting is driven by partisanship rather than patriotism. Political action driven by partisanship does not emphasize objective analysis or seek facts, nor does it consider the overall interests of the nation. As long as the action is taken by one's own party, it will always be supported to the end, even if it is motivated by self-interest or harmful to the interests of the nation. The two large-scale demonstrations that took place recently seem to follow this pattern of behavior.
Another issue that stops Taiwan from developing normal patriotism is the prevailing influence of the already deceased party-state system. The equation of party to state made it impossible for people outside that party to develop a patriotism different from that defined by the party.
Because patriotism was monopolized by the party, being a patriot and loving the nation meant loving the party. People did not have the freedom to be patriots, nor did they have the freedom not to. Forty years of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) party-state prevented the seeds of freely chosen patriotism from taking root in Taiwan.
Third, the reactions of the fashionable new leftism and postmodernism against right-wing party-state authoritarianism constitute another obstacle to patriotism. If the first two factors that hinder the development of patriotism mainly affect the general public, then the third factor mainly affects intellectuals. To these slightly left-wing individuals, the nation is a symbol of oppression. Therefore, any mention of patriotism is related to fascism to a certain degree and is very politically incorrect. Not only slightly left-leaning, but also slightly right-leaning intellectuals feel patriotism is outdated.
As the nation gradually perishes under the effects of globalization, patriotism has come to be seen as an obstacle to economic, trade and cultural development, and as such, it must be destroyed.
However, Taiwan's real problem is diametrically opposite to the concerns of anti-nationalist intellectuals. They describe Taiwan as a society replete with strong nationalist sentiment, where democracy is no more than a tool to facilitate populist mobilization of the public.
Taiwan's problem is not excessive nationalism, but rather a lack of patriots that are able to direct this nationalism toward becoming a proactive force for improvement. At a time when much anxiety is being expressed over the future of the nation, I want to put forward a couple of bold suggestions: why not give patriotism for a new era a shot, and why not arouse a new generation of patriots?
Jou Yi-cheng is a student at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing