When China isolated itself — or was isolated — little information about the country or its people was accessible. At the time, US China experts were scarce as they needed to understand Chinese characters and to have studied Chinese history and culture for a few years to obtain a reasonable understanding of the Chinese situation.
After former US president Richard Nixon opened a channel to China, the number of US China experts shot up. Various professionals such as businesspeople, politicians, academics and journalists went to China and gained a superficial understanding of the country by listening to swaggering locals. These so-called China experts could be called the “fast food” experts.
The “fast food” school of China experts holds to a few dogmas. First, China has a vast territory and lots of people, so the US must not make an enemy of it. It also argues that China offers unlimited business opportunities and that once it rises, it will settle old scores. China’s long period of decline was based on nationalism and adventurism abroad. Therefore, the belief goes, the US cannot afford to provoke China and instead must accommodate the Chinese government on all matters.
FRAGILE
During the administration of former US president Bill Clinton, Clark Randt, former US ambassador to China, worried about a Chinese collapse because of the impact a flood of Chinese refugees would have on Southeast Asia. In the same vein, in her 2007 book China: Fragile Superpower, former US deputy assistant secretary of state Susan Shirk revealed a similar attitude: China’s weakness had led to insecurity among the Chinese leadership and this could lead to the use of force against Taiwan in an attempt to fan nationalism to secure power.
Shirk’s book sees through China and its tricks and addresses China’s serious internal problems in an objective manner by saying that China is “externally strong but internally weak.” However, for commercial purposes, she made alarming statements in the first chapter of her book, saying that if China was strong, Taiwan would be in danger and that if China was weak, Taiwan would still be in danger.
Although she did not want to appear impetuous on political matters because of concerns for book sales in Taiwan, she asserted that economic integration with China would be beneficial to the majority of Taiwanese and that “it will reduce the obstacles facing Taiwan’s security.”
NORMALIZED
There is no question that economic exchanges between Taiwan and China should be normalized. But if integration means political compromise on Taiwan’s sovereignty and annexation by China, then how could it reduce Taiwan’s security problem? Ever since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, Chinese military invasion has not been one of Taiwan’s security problems: The problem has been the “peaceful annexation” of Taiwan by China.
Those US China experts should change the way they think.
Neither China’s peaceful rise nor collapse is a bad thing since such an anti-humanistic regime as China’s should be overthrown at any rate. If the Chinese leadership wanted to engage in an external adventure to distract attention from its serious internal situation, it would dig its own grave. Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) is not as stupid as those experts think.
James Wang is a senior media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS