The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “united front” tactics continue to distort history to form a narrative conducive to CCP control over territories it lays claim to.
On Friday, the Council of Indigenous Peoples criticized former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Yosi Takun (孔文吉) for remarks he made during an event hosted by China’s Yunnan Minzu University. The remarks suggested that Taiwan’s indigenous people — who are of Austronesian descent, speak Austronesian languages, and have an independent identity and culture — are part of China’s minority cultures.
The council is right to push back against the obvious distortion targeting Austronesian people in Taiwan who have lived here for approximately 15,000 years.
The idea is so easily refutable that perhaps it is better to look behind the distortions and understand why the CCP is resorting to such unfounded claims.
The root of the problem is that the CCP is attempting to forge a nation state out of territory the Republic of China (ROC) inherited from the Manchu Qing Dynasty, which was subsequently transferred to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) when the CCP defeated the KMT in 1949, Chinese-Australian historian and Sinologist Wang Gungwu (王賡武) said.
The concept of the nation state developed in the late 18th century was formulated within the context of the majority of the countries in Europe already encompassing people who spoke the same language, had the same historical narrative and probably shared the same religion, and turning the people within the borders of each country into a nation state was relatively straightforward, Wang said.
Many Asian countries did not have this luxury, as their borders did not evolve along national lines, but were drawn according to the requirements of colonial masters, he said. Japan was one exception. China had a different quandary: The ROC in 1912 inherited the borders of the Manchu Qing empire, which was not a Han empire, but a Manchu-Mongol one, and covered territory beyond countries with majority Han Chinese populations.
Taiwan was not part of this territory: The Manchu-Qing empire had ceded it to Japan in 1895, and Japan did not relinquish control over Taiwan until 1945.
ROC founder Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) looked for a way to organize his inherited borders as a republic modeled on the two successful republics of the day, the US and France, to govern diverse groups of people who had been controlled by an imperial state. Wang called this a “mammoth task.”
The CCP is still struggling to work out how to control diverse groups who have never belonged to a nation in an ethnic — as opposed to political — sense, and to claim legitimacy for that project, Wang said.
If it fails to do so, it runs the risk of losing control over the territories it now controls through fragmentation along defined national, historical and ethnic lines, as happened in the late 20th century with the collapse of the Soviet Union, he said.
Putting all of these groups under the umbrella of the “Chinese nation” (中華民族), a term invented by Sun and co-opted by the CCP, is a solution, but ethnic groups and nations such as the Tibetans, Uighurs, Taiwanese and Austronesian indigenous groups in Taiwan are not buying it.
That is, the roots of the “united front” attempts to absorb Taiwan’s indigenous people into its orbit extend beyond the CCP’s fabricated claims over Taiwan; they strike at the heart of the CCP’s legitimacy and the party’s definition of the PRC as a nation state.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS