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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations