With China’s economy in the doldrums, people have been asking whether a slowing economy might make Chinese less supportive of a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan. With more pressing issues, such as healthcare, housing and cost of living, Chinese might be more concerned with developments inside their country, rather than “reunifying the motherland,” using the parlance of the Chinese Communist Party.
“Ordinary Chinese people are not pushing the government to get unification,” one Chinese told al-Jazeera last week, adding: “It is the government that pushes people to believe that there must be unification.”
University of Manchester China Institute research fellow Wang Tao, writing for Foreign Policy last week, said that going by recent comments on Chinese social media, Chinese are souring on the idea of a Taiwan invasion. He said this is a marked change from online sentiment in the past few years, which has been characterized by bellicose nationalism and anti-Taiwan warmongering.
“Who is going to fight the war? If I die, who is going to pay my mortgage or my car loan?” wrote one user regarding a post from Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) about “reunification” with Taiwan.
However, these comments and interviews should be taken with a pinch of salt, as they might not be representative of wider public opinion. Polling on this matter suggests Chinese would be more than willing to support an invasion.
In an article titled “Assessing Public Support for (Non-)Peaceful Unification with Taiwan: Evidence from a Nationwide Survey in China” published in the Journal of Contemporary China, academics Adam Liu (劉遙) and Li Xiaojun (李曉雋) asked Chinese whether they would find “armed unification” acceptable. Fifty-five percent of respondents said they would, while 33 percent said they would not.
Public opinion data in authoritarian countries tend to be unreliable given that respondents are incentivized to self-censor for fear of the repercussions for speaking against the party line. Yet 55 percent, even for an authoritarian country, is high. On the eve of Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, 43 percent of Russians said the use of military force against Ukraine to force it to join Russia would be wrong, while 36 percent said it would be right.
A few comments online and in interviews with journalists expressing skepticism about supporting an invasion should not encourage Taiwanese. Many in the West hoped that Russians would not support their government’s invasion of Ukraine. Especially once the impact of sanctions hit, the hope was that a political movement would rise up and force the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin to withdraw. The democratic world has been disappointed.
Like Russia’s, the Chinese political system is based on depoliticization and demobilization. People are encouraged to not get involved in politics, and for a variety of reasons, they duly oblige.
Fundamentally, authoritarian political rulers are not answerable to their public, and often make decisions themselves. While there might be some grumbling online and chuntering with journalists, if China were to invade Taiwan, do not expect the Chinese people to take a stand and stop the carnage.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS