Perhaps it was unrealistic to expect that the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China would produce festivities symbolizing a new era of peaceful co-existence and cooperation with China’s neighbors. Even so, it is disappointing to note that the evolving use of the concept of “peace” or “peaceful” in Chinese government rhetoric simply had no place in a parade that bristled with Stalinist symbolism and offensive weaponry.
A number of analysts have pointed out — somewhat in China’s defense — that the bravado and military pomp primarily targeted a domestic audience, and that relationships with other governments continue to be guided by more congenial and sensitive techniques.
The Beijing Olympics opening ceremony was an excellent example of the Chinese government going out of its way to merge the requirements of both locals and foreigners — and largely succeeding in pleasing both sets of audiences. This was, admittedly, in the context of an international sporting event, but sport did not stop previous Olympic hosts, for example, from commandeering a celebration of internationalism in the service of something noxious.
If the National Day parade’s message was primarily domestic, it was still going to have an international dimension, and in this instance, with the aggressive display of indigenous weaponry, it seems the Chinese government is unconcerned that it might be portrayed as tilting toward the hardliners.
With so many ordinary Chinese expressing pride in their country not in terms of its own merits and standards but in terms of comparisons to other nations whose wealth and power they covet, the overall atmosphere justifies concerns over China’s intentions in the region — not just for Taiwan, for which Beijing’s goal is explicit, but also Japan, India, the Russian Federation and the US, for example.
Indeed, it is difficult to see how foreign governments — particularly Western governments and Japan — are going to find solace in the gargantuan bombast and cultural misappropriations that not only characterize China, but oppressive regimes everywhere.
As to the political effect on Taiwan, the reaction has largely been “more of the same” from both sides. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government can point to overtures of peace in speeches on the day and explain away the display of weaponry as stock behavior for any nation’s birthday celebrations. The Democratic Progressive Party, however, can rightly ask how China can be taken seriously in cross-strait negotiations when its primary measure of national might is the capacity for military threat rather than the ability to synthesize diverse regional interests.
For most ordinary Taiwanese, however, the parade will have simply acted as a reminder that people across the Strait are ruled by a political machine that, for all of its strength, is struggling to steer a complex, changing environment at home and to live up to the expectations of democratic states in its international activities.
Whether domestic or global, the pressing, shared problems of the world can no longer be unilaterally solved by great powers, nor by the exercising of power through the barrel of a gun.
Neither reality had any role to play in Thursday’s parade, and if the tenor of that celebration of national features, which ironically expelled ordinary Chinese from the surrounds, is a harbinger of China’s dealings with the region in the foreseeable future, then that is a tremendous shame — and another clear warning.
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past