In recent years, China's spin doctors have hatched a peculiar watchword in reference to Taiwan: "troublemaker." How Taiwan, a country so oppressed in the international community, has earned the moniker "troublemaker," especially from the hegemonic Chinese, is a question whose answer ironically reveals more about China's troublemaking than anything else.
First, we must understand the concept of Asia-Pacific security. Let us briefly examine the history of war in the Asia-Pacific region since World War II: the Korean War, the first Indochina War, the Vietnam War, the Paracel Islands conflict, the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror, the Sino-Vietnamese War, Spratly Islands clashes, etc. In which of these conflicts did China not play a role? Of the many coups d'etat brought about by communist elements, which ones did China not play a role in?
East Asia has always been a region on the verge of war, with constant or potential conflict. From the beginning, China has been a threat to regional security.
Some East Asian countries that have fought anti-colonial wars have had no potential enemies following their independence, although the fact is that a fifth column -- the subversive international communist movement -- in addition to creating domestic infighting has also created enmity and distrust between China and its neighbors. China-supported fifth columns have toppled governments in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, leading to massive human and economic losses in wars with Communist parties. The number of deaths attributed to the Vietnam War, the civil war in Cambodia, and the anti-communist civil wars in Indonesia and the Philippines exceed the casualties of both world wars combined. China could be found in the background of all these wars, trying to pull the strings and wreak havoc in every country in the region in order to destroy the regional order.
Second, China's military is capitalizing on the country's economic gains by buying weapons and modernizing its defense capabilities on an unprecedented scale. China's southeast coast is peppered with ballistic missile batteries, which are pointed at Taiwan and could also be deployed in defense of its eastern and southern seaboards. The range of such missiles encompasses all of East Asia, making China a significant regional threat.
Although China has paid much lip service to maintaining regional peace, this position is only meant to serve its own development needs, which, for now, call for stability. China's promoting stability in its backyard does not mean that it is a peace-loving nation.
Maintaining regional stability is a key responsibility for permanent UN Security Council members like China -- Beijing need not emphasize its commitment to peace in Asia as if it were doing the world a big favor. Besides, to date, China's contributions to maintaining security abroad have been weak. In East Asia, China's international peacekeeping activities have been limited to sending troops to Cambodia and East Timor. With regard to combatting terrorism in the region, China has merely gone through the motions of accommodating the US in its anti-terrorism efforts; no concrete actions have been taken.
As for piracy in the Strait of Malacca, regional players have pledged to meet this problem head-on. For instance, Japan has provided much financial assistance in protecting this vital trade route. China's response, on the other hand, was very disappointing; it invoked the memory of Zhenghe (
In a gala celebration, China and Malaysia celebrated Zhenghe's exploits on the high seas, and announced their intentions to deploy troops to the strait to safeguard it. For those who know something about Zhenghe and his seven voyages, China's messages sound very ominous. One of the main goals of Zhenghe's epic travels, for example, was to secure the Malacca and Palempang ports to ensure smooth passage through the Strait of Malacca.
Outwardly, China seeks to commit troops to the strait to deal with pirates; inwardly, it is trying to advance its own agenda of making sure its energy supplies are smoothly transported to its shores. Regional players are fully aware of this agenda, which is why China's offer of troops has elicited such a lukewarm response.
In short, China has changed little since its imperial days; it is still feeding its neighbors the same half-truths and pretenses.
China has incessantly bullied Taiwan since Taipei exited the UN in 1971, slyly dragging the nation into its fold while denying it its existence as a distinct political entity with all the rights and privileges of a full-fledged country. Every time China establishes diplomatic relations with another country, it makes that country commit to the position that Taiwan is a part of China, violating the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. China has also repeatedly declared that it will attack Taiwan if the nation moves too far towards independence.
Such open threats by China, directed at a country that is not a part of its territory, have severely damaged China's credibility in the international community, and are evidence that China is unfit for membership in the UN Security Council.
The state of affairs that took shape in the Taiwan Strait has not changed in a fundamental way since 1951: half a century later, the two sides of the strait still possess their own separate governments and peoples, and even their own sovereignties. The two sides are not of one country.
The world understands that China's "Anti-Secession" Law is merely its latest attempt to yank Taiwan into its sphere of jurisdiction, and this contradicts the conventions of diplomacy and international relations. The Anti-Secession Law has altered the cross-strait status quo and laid bare the ugly hegemony that drives China's global aspirations.
Does Taiwan truly deserve the nickname "Asia Pacific's Troublemaker" for standing up for itself in the face of Chinese aggression? Although Taiwan is small, it will not go easily like a sheep led to slaughter. We must resist Chinese hegemony and hold out hope that the international community will sympathize with our plight and support us.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor in the department of history at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Max Hirsch
[Editor's note: Taipei Times does not support a number of references to the historical record in this article.]
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS