On April 1, President Chen Shui-bian (
"If there is an opportunity to go to the mainland, I would like to go to my old village in Fujian," he said.
Since Chen was born in Taiwan, the use of the word "hometown" in the CNN report by Willy Wo-Lap Lam was misleading. What Chen meant was obviously his ancestral village.
In his stopover in New York City last May, Chen hosted a reception and dinner for more than 100 Taiwanese-American community leaders from the mid-Atlantic states at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel and delivered a speech in Mandarin. To the dismay of many in the audience, Chen referred to the assemblage as we Chinese (
In his New Year's Eve message at the end of 2000, Chen said China and Taiwan share similar history, culture and ethnicity and therefore it is the policy of his administration to strive for cultural and economic integration with China, leading to eventual political integration with the People's Republic of China. The reasons given for the goal of integration with China betray Chen's fuzzy and confused thinking about Taiwan-China relations. Taiwan's history is dissimilar from that of China. Taiwan has been ruled by the Dutch, Koxinga, the Qing Dynasty (an alien regime which ruled China from 1644 to 1911) and Japan. Taiwan's history may be characterized as an incessant struggle for liberty against foreign rulers. Taiwan has also been separated from China through most of its history. In the past 100 years, Taiwan was ruled by a central Chinese government for only four years, from 1945 to 1949. While it is true much of Taiwan's culture has its origins in China, Taiwan has also been exposed to the influence of other cultures, particularly that of Japan during the colonial period and, through education and media exposure, American and European cultures as well. Furthermore, shared culture is merely one factor in the shaping of a common national identity. Korea and Japan, for example, have both adopted many elements of Chinese culture, such as Confucian ethics and Chinese characters. But such cultural influences have not deflected the Koreans or Japanese from their own distinct sense of nationhood.
Race is also overrated as a basis for national consciousness. China has been conquered and ruled by barbarian tribes many times and over long periods in its history. The so-called Han Chinese race is a myth created for political purposes. Besides, Taiwan has several distinct ethnic groups. Today's dominant Holo and Hakka groups are quite different from their counterparts in Southern China because of intermarriage with the Aboriginal inhabitants since the 17th century. In any event, it is futile to equate race with nationality. Regardless of their ethnic origin or time of arrival, all citizens who love Taiwan and pledge allegiance to Taiwan should call themselves Taiwanese. Ethnicity should not be invoked in discussing the independence-unification issue.
So when Chen says Taiwan should integrate with China because we are all Chinese sharing the same history, culture and ethnicity, he is on very flimsy ground. It is also unclear what Chen means by the word "Chinese," because the context is not defined. He could have meant that he is a Han Chinese, a descendant of the Yellow Emperor. Such belief, however, is an unscientific concept artificially created by political indoctrination. If Chen called himself a Chinese to express his affinity with Chinese culture, this is understandable, but it may also indicate his paucity of knowledge about the unique features of Taiwan's history, culture and value systems.
In common usage, the word Chinese is frequently used to denote a person's allegiance to the nation of China, which is now understood by the international community as the People's Republic of China. This is why it is misleading and self-defeating for anyone who owes allegiance to Taiwan to call himself a Chinese. Without a clear sense of Taiwanese national identity, it will be difficult for Taiwan to develop a consensus to defend its freedom, to preserve its de facto independence and to develop a viable, self-reliant economy, because businessmen would prefer to develop China's larger economy instead. It will be difficult to build a robust military force dedicated to the island's defense because bright youngsters cannot be motivated to join the armed forces. Without patriotism, morale in Taiwan's military will be low and the officers and troops cannot be sure how firm the political leadership will be in resisting Chinese military aggression when it comes.
Taiwan's president is not just the chief executive officer of the central government and commander in chief of the armed forces, he is also the political and spiritual leader who is charged with the responsibility to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizens from outside assault. Chen should refrain from words and actions that will exacerbate the already dangerously confused sense of national identity among Taiwan's populace. He needs to enhance Taiwanese national consciousness by emphasizing the Taiwanese people's proud achievement in building a free-market democracy out of the ashes of the KMT autocracy and their common political and economic interests in maintaining a separate existence from the destitute and repressive People's Republic of China.
Blind fear of China's growing military might and the pursuit of economic and political integration with Communist China will doom Taiwan to a bleak future of poverty, humiliation and servitude. In his speech to the Japanese Diet on Feb. 19, US President George W. Bush said: "America will remember our commitments to the people on Taiwan." In his State of the Union speech in January, Bush promised that the US will take the side of brave men and women who advocate democratic values. Taiwan's future can be bright, although not without sacrifices, only if the government and citizens are brave enough to stand up for their freedom, human rights and dignity. No citizen can pledge allegiance to both Taiwan and the People's Republic, an adversary which openly threatens to forcefully crush Taiwan's democracy. So it is legitimate to ask Chen: are you a Chinese or a Taiwanese?
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic