A few days ago, when Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) met, Xi said: “It has never changed, and will never change that we belong to one nation.”
Xi’s statement that the situation “will never change” was very strong. In a world where change is the norm, what was Xi implying when he used such strong language?
Putting Xi’s idea about change into a literary context, we may be reminded of desperate, forced or violent love. We may be reminded of a person who uses violent language in the name of love as they face sure separation from the other in a context that cannot be changed. Violent language is an extension of the will. When one party “threatens” to be with the other party forever, regardless of what may happen, they are essentially destroying the other party’s free will. Here, we may imagine a situation in which one party threatens the other party with physical violence if that other party is intent on breaking up.
Expressions like “things will never change” are extremely overbearing and show how Xi believes that he has an absolute monopoly on the truth. Deconstructing such expressions requires the wisdom of counterquestioning, for, after all, what does a comment like this mean? If we look at it in terms of a timeline, we will see that such nationalistic vocabulary lost its effectiveness a long time ago. In the contemporary world, the relationship between a country and its people is becoming increasingly like a contract, and national legitimacy is based on the public will. In the past, nationalism was used to save a country and forge a sense of national identity in the face of invasion.
Saying that things never will change is part of Beijing’s “one China” worldview and this is echoed in China’s national anthem, March of the Volunteers, which sings of how “the Chinese have arrived at their most perilous time.”
However, in reality, this is all just a part of history and should be treated the same way we flick through the pages of a history book.
In this day and age, statements that things will never change may sound severe, but they are empty threats. When deconstructing threats like this, it is very important to point out the violent nature inherent in such language.
Taiwan’s current ruling party has proven itself to be irresponsible and incompetent in this regard.
It has allowed Beijing to make constant and excessive demands, and the most it has ever done against Beijing’s violent language is to politely call on them to “pay attention to the fact that the Republic of China exists.”
However, demanding that others “pay attention to” something is in essence a display of weakness and does not afford it any power to resist China. In response to Chinese official requests, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has also shown it does not want to push ahead with its agenda in a proactive manner. If it follows the footsteps of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and merely goes back and forth within the framework of “one China” and “each side having its own interpretation,” it will never be able to do anything but fall into the “context” Beijing has set up.
Now, what we should do is directly point out how Xi greets his guests with a big smile and a hidden dagger up his sleeve and how violent his language is, a form of violence that he does not even try to conceal. Xi’s statement that things will never change is frightening, but what makes it so is all the missiles China has aimed at Taiwan. By clearly pointing out this fact, Taiwanese can at least become more aware of the use of violent language.
Taiwanese do not blindly oppose China; they oppose oppression and the way to counter China’s hegemonic intentions is to deconstruct China through its use of language.
Relationships between men and women are a suitable analogy. When faced with the suffocating, male violence from a party convinced that they offer care, kindness and generosity, as well as other advantages in the name of the “homeland,” we should not cater to or give into their wishes or be meek and subservient. Instead we should change the vocabulary we use to pose questions and point out how the expressions used by the other party have nothing to do with warm feelings, but are simply a form of violence aimed at forcing us into obedient submission.
Language is an expression of thought and cross-strait relations have always been a battlefield in which a war of thought has been fought out. Taiwan is a small country and as such, we should rely on the wisdom to be found in the concept of redirecting an opponent’s force. Taiwanese should not let Xi off so easily when it comes to his recent statement about Taiwan. Instead, we could ask Xi why things will never ever change. Has he not recently talked about understanding the will of Taiwanese to be their own masters? Then why is it that he will not allow Taiwanese to change according to their own will?
Ping Lu is an author and former director of Taiwan’s Kwang Hwa Information and Culture Center in Hong Kong.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and