Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine indicates the emergence of a new Russia-China alliance — an “authoritarian bloc” that seeks to challenge the US-led democratic world order.
The invasion has sparked intense local debate, with many concerned that China might follow suit and invade Taiwan.
Chinese nationalists and pro-Beijing Taiwanese have been hammering away at their keyboards in an attempt to shape the narrative around the Russian invasion.
Many posts and comments repeat similar themes, such as: “I would not go to war for any politician,” and reveal their origins. The warped logic of such posts could only have come from inside an authoritarian regime.
There have been numerous “hot takes” on the war in Ukraine circulating on Taiwanese discussion forums, including Professional Technology Temple, the nation’s most popular online bulletin board, and Dcard, an online forum popular among young people.
Typical examples include: “High ranking [Ukrainian] officials will certainly flee like rats from a sinking ship — I wouldn’t fight on their behalf” and: “If China invades [Taiwan], I would definitely run up the white flag.”
In the short term, such posts trend online, but they are not only highly suspicious — most Taiwanese Internet users would suspect that they have been fabricated by Chinese bot farms — but comments such as: “I wouldn’t go to war for any politician” also clearly betray a Chinese, rather than a Taiwanese, thought process.
Chinese society is still structured around an authoritarian, imperial model. Everyone and everything is subservient to the “emperor.” For example, a video circulated online during China’s Himalayan border conflict with India last year showed Chinese recruits crying because they think they are being sent to the front line as “cannon fodder.”
Under China’s imperial system of government — rather than the nation belonging to the people — its people are the property of the emperor, which in today’s China means the Chinese Communist Party. Under this model, the sentiment: “I wouldn’t go to war for any politician,” or being reduced to tears at the prospect of possibly dying for one’s country, is to be expected.
In democratic societies, the inverse is true. The nation belongs to the people, who give their political representatives a temporary mandate to rule by means of an electoral vote. This is a far cry from China, where everything belongs to the one-party state.
The whole world is aware that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy rejected safe passage out of Ukraine offered to him by Washington, remained in the capital and, if necessary, would fight alongside his compatriots in Kyiv’s volunteer battalions. The same is true of former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, Ukrainian lawmakers and many ordinary Ukrainians.
From the top down, Ukrainians are bravely resisting the enemy. They are fighting to protect their democratic freedoms, for it is like oxygen to them. It is the most basic of human instincts to want to protect family, friends and native soil.
This sense of attachment to community, to one’s compatriots, is something that most Chinese, trapped inside an unreformed imperial system, will never understand.
Pan Kuan was a participant in the 2014 Sunflower movement.
Translated by Edward Jones
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS