If democratic Taiwan and authoritarian China were united, Taiwan’s democracy would disappear, which would make it more difficult for authoritarian China to become a democratic nation. In other words, the meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) hurt Taiwan and was of no benefit to China.
While Beijing often shoves the “one China” slogan down Taiwan’s throat, Xi did not bring it up during the meeting. Instead, he stressed that the two sides both “belong to the same people.” Ma, on the other hand, eagerly brought up the “one China” framework to help his counterpart apply it to Taiwan.
Xi kept talking about the cross-strait family relationship and “one people,” but the fact is that there are more than 60 different ethnic groups in the People’s Republic of China, so how can adding Taiwan to the mix result in one people? What kind of arithmetic is that?
Of course their — the same applies to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — talk about belonging to “the same people” means belonging to the Zhonghua minzu (Chinese ethnic group, 中華民族). However, this is a political term — an imaginary construct — and not a scientific term based on empirical knowledge.
In ethnography, ethnology and other ethnic studies, there is no such thing as a “Chinese people.” This term, which does not stand up to academic scrutiny, was constructed at about the time of the founding of the Republic of China. About 100 years later, it seems to have become the magic formula that the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party are using to bring about a united China, as it is being used to suppress all ethnic groups and areas that want political independence and autonomy: Anyone who wants independence is accused of destroying the “Chinese people.”
In what way is this different from the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere that Imperial Japan wanted all Asian countries to accept during World War II lest they be attacked for destroying the peace?
In order to identify with this empty phrase, Taiwan would have to sacrifice its status as an independent, autonomous democracy. That would really be the most idiotic decision imaginable.
If China wants to use the concept “Chinese people” to unify all ethnic groups in China, that is its own problem. Taiwan has no obligation to join them in constructing this political fairy tale.
At the meeting with Xi, Ma said that Taipei and Beijing should work together to rejuvenate China. Taiwan should indeed build friendly relations with China, ideally by exchanging ambassadors, but Taiwan is under no obligation to “rejuvenate China.” It is like the US and the UK: while the two countries work closely together in the international community, the US would never get the preposterous idea of saying that the two are working together to rejuvenate Great Britain.
Ma brought up the so-called “1992 consensus” in the meeting because he wanted to ingratiate himself with Xi and stress the so-called “one China” principle. At home, Ma’s “1992 consensus” means “one China, different interpretations,” but when he met with the mighty Xi, the “different interpretations” part somehow disappeared, swallowed down by Ma. He might be a puppet president, but does he have to be a coward, too?
Ma seems to have forgotten what he said during the 1992 talks in Hong Kong when he was still vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Commission: “The Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits knows very well that the two sides have nothing in common when it comes to the interpretation of ‘one China.’”
At the time, he also criticized China for being “lacking in sincerity” and submitting Taiwan to political blackmail with its insistence on “one China.” Today, he is helping the enemy with its political blackmail.
The key reason why Taiwan cannot be annexed by China is the difference between democracy and autocracy. It has nothing to do with bloodline or ancestry. What Ma and Xi should have talked about is democracy, not ethnicity. Making belonging to a particular ethnic group the only concern will only bring an end to Taiwan’s democracy and destroy all hope for the democratization of China.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a professor at National Taipei University of Education’s Graduate School of Taiwanese Culture.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS