Chan’s White Man’s Burden
At the end of the Taipei Times’ April 21 editorial, “Jackie Chan [成龍] — Friend of Repression,” it states: “The Taipei City Government should do the right thing and replace Chan as its spokesman for this summer’s Deaflympics.”
Despite the fact that I usually agree wholeheartedly with the Taipei Times’ editorial stance, I must, in this instance, with all respect, beg to differ for three reasons:
First, Chan’s views in regard to Hong Kong have been well known for a long time. The Taipei City Government was certainly aware of Chan’s attitude and “world view” before the members invited him to serve as spokesman. Better that they never asked him at all than to retract their invitation.
Second, Chan certainly has his right to freedom of speech. As hopelessly ignorant, naive and truly pathetic as they were, Chan’s comments fell within the acceptable parameters of free speech.
In my opinion, none of his statements were so egregiously hateful, or hate-provoking, that they should be squelched or censored. By the way, I find it ironic that his comments — while receiving considerable notice and commentary in Hong Kong and Taiwan — were ignored in China.
Third, I basically view Chan as a woefully pathetic loser whose “star is descending.” He is desperately clinging to his vanishing career. Hence his groveling and kowtowing.
Most pathetic of all is that he has psychologically internalized imperialist oppression and colonialist ideology.
Chan has psychologically internalized, and made his own, the ideas expressed in Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden. According to the colonial world view, the non-European peoples of Africa, Asia and the Americas were viewed as helplessly childlike. They were seen as utterly incapable of governing themselves or managing their own affairs. Thus, they were in dire need of a strong, authoritarian “father figure.” White European people viewed themselves as carrying the heavy “burden” of ruling over and encouraging the cultural development of people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds until such time as these people were able to assume their rightful place in the world by thoroughly adopting Western ways.
Rather than being barred from entering Taiwan, Chan should be encouraged to come and see for himself. Hopefully, he will benefit from the education that he will receive. Hopefully, he will learn through dialogue. At the very least, if allowed to enter Taiwan, Chan will be obliged to explain himself and provide support and proof for his ideas.
MICHAEL SCANLON
East Hartford, Connecticut
No peace without Taiwanese
Fidel Ramos’ key message in his article “Constructing Asia’s missing links” (April 16, page 8) was that peace between Taiwan and China will be established when Taiwan is annexed by China, and when the US stops its arms sales to Taiwan. This is a political position that ignores the Taiwanese who do not want to be part of China, and it ignores the fact that China has about 1,500 missiles aimed at the island and an “Anti-Secession” Law legitimizing a military attack on Taiwan.
Most politicians in Taiwan, regardless of party ideology, agree that deeper economic agreements and an open dialogue with China form part of the way to peace and mutual understanding. This is precisely why Taiwan and China experienced the largest economic integration during Taiwan’s eight years under the Democratic Progressive Party, with independence as its ultimate objective. A pro-China supporter like Ramos should take note of this.
Taiwan’s current Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government is trying to reach a kind of free trade agreement with China. In this context, however, Taiwan is experiencing a heated debate, as China has set the acceptance of a “one China” policy as a condition for an agreement and thus Taiwan would formally become part of China. This is pursued despite 80 percent of Taiwanese being opposed to an agreement with a “one China” condition. Thus, Ramos is speaking against a vast majority of Taiwanese.
US arms sales to Taiwan are, according to Ramos, “a major obstacle to easing tensions.” Arms races are rarely a success, but if China maintains its “Anti-Secession” Law providing for an attack on Taiwan if it will not become part of China, and continues to set up missiles during the current negotiations, Taiwan has the right to buy defensive weapons.
It does not promote understanding of a complex conflict to make a one-sided and distorted analysis of reality while ignoring Taiwan’s democratic population of 23 million people.
MICHAEL DANIELSEN,
CHAIRMAN, TAIWAN CORNER
Copenhagen, Denmark
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
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
RSS