Take a closer look
I take great issue with James Holmes’ opinion piece (“Decoding Chinese sensitivities,” Nov. 28, page 8). Once again we find a US academic waxing apologetic for hegemonic China from a distant ivory tower. For those of us who live in Asia, the wonderment and/or bewildering question is more: How did this man come to teach strategy at the US Naval War College? Who is he teaching for?
I present a more Asian way to understand China’s position (read: paranoid schizophrenic) and a decoding of Holmes’ selective sympathy for one of Asia’s traditional bullies.
Examine first the phrase “paranoid schizophrenic.” Paranoia is a psychotic disorder that is characterized by delusions of persecution or grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason. It is followed by extreme irrational distrust of others. Add to this schizophrenia, a condition that results from the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic qualities, identities or activities. Does anything there ring familiar with those who -regularly cover Chinese discourse? Who has not heard of the hurt feelings of entitlement for the court -historian-created grandeur of the Middle Kingdom or the feelings of persecution when the bully does not get his way?
Next, decode Holmes’ selective sympathy and one-sided apologies — the usual fare from those who for too long limit their shared discourse to only Chinese academics. Holmes speaks of China’s “century of humiliation” while ignoring the “centuries of aggression” that preceded it as the Qing imperial court conquered and humiliated its neighbors. Holmes reiterates another jaded Chinese phrase: “unequal treaties.” How many treaties that end wars are ever equal? With all the nations that have been at war over the centuries, how many do you know that constantly harp on their unequal treaties of a past century?
Get over it.
Ask rather how many unequal treaties China has imposed on the many vassal states it subjugated or wanted to subjugate in past centuries. That China has a selective memory of its past could be understandable; that US -academics feel that “poor China’s selectivity” needs to be understood and sympathized with is questionable to say the least.
Somehow always lost in China’s century-of--humiliation discourse is the fact that China came into conflict with Japan in the 1890s because both wanted to maintain their sphere of influence in Korea. Lost too in China’s schizophrenia is how Han Chinese wanted to “overthrow the hated Manchu Qing and restore the Ming,” but they felt entitled to keep the other territories that the Manchus had conquered. Does anyone wonder about the unequal treaties or impositions made on Tibet, East Turkestan and Inner Mongolia? Lost even in the past century is how China attacked Vietnam and fought land and sea battles to put Vietnam in its place in relation to the famed Middle Kingdom. The land battles did not turn out that well for China, but we don’t hear that much about that.
Examine another approach. Like China, Japan in the 19th century found itself being pulled out of isolationism as treaty ports were forced open. Somehow, Japan got past that “humiliation.” Paranoid? In the process Japan does not feel that the East China Sea bears the shame of forced openings and therefore must be defended. Similarly, many of the countries that border the South China Sea had found themselves colonized by that sea path in the past. However, they do not feel that they have the right to claim the South China Sea as their Mare Nostrum. Finally, “poor China” has no problem ignoring the sensitivities of the people of Taiwan when it conducts war games in the seas surrounding Taiwan. For them, the shoe is on the other foot.
It is time for US academics to stop apologizing for China. If they want a better handle on China’s continuing attitude of entitled hegemony in Asia, they should ask China’s neighbors about their sensitivities. Similarly, if they want to get a better handle on the real character beneath China’s sense of humiliation, I suggest they start with Bo Yang’s (柏楊) assessment of China’s “soy-paste vat” culture in his work The Ugly Chinaman (醜陋的中國人).
JEROME KEATING
Taipei
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS