When China isolated itself — or was isolated — little information about the country or its people was accessible. At the time, US China experts were scarce as they needed to understand Chinese characters and to have studied Chinese history and culture for a few years to obtain a reasonable understanding of the Chinese situation.
After former US president Richard Nixon opened a channel to China, the number of US China experts shot up. Various professionals such as businesspeople, politicians, academics and journalists went to China and gained a superficial understanding of the country by listening to swaggering locals. These so-called China experts could be called the “fast food” experts.
The “fast food” school of China experts holds to a few dogmas. First, China has a vast territory and lots of people, so the US must not make an enemy of it. It also argues that China offers unlimited business opportunities and that once it rises, it will settle old scores. China’s long period of decline was based on nationalism and adventurism abroad. Therefore, the belief goes, the US cannot afford to provoke China and instead must accommodate the Chinese government on all matters.
FRAGILE
During the administration of former US president Bill Clinton, Clark Randt, former US ambassador to China, worried about a Chinese collapse because of the impact a flood of Chinese refugees would have on Southeast Asia. In the same vein, in her 2007 book China: Fragile Superpower, former US deputy assistant secretary of state Susan Shirk revealed a similar attitude: China’s weakness had led to insecurity among the Chinese leadership and this could lead to the use of force against Taiwan in an attempt to fan nationalism to secure power.
Shirk’s book sees through China and its tricks and addresses China’s serious internal problems in an objective manner by saying that China is “externally strong but internally weak.” However, for commercial purposes, she made alarming statements in the first chapter of her book, saying that if China was strong, Taiwan would be in danger and that if China was weak, Taiwan would still be in danger.
Although she did not want to appear impetuous on political matters because of concerns for book sales in Taiwan, she asserted that economic integration with China would be beneficial to the majority of Taiwanese and that “it will reduce the obstacles facing Taiwan’s security.”
NORMALIZED
There is no question that economic exchanges between Taiwan and China should be normalized. But if integration means political compromise on Taiwan’s sovereignty and annexation by China, then how could it reduce Taiwan’s security problem? Ever since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, Chinese military invasion has not been one of Taiwan’s security problems: The problem has been the “peaceful annexation” of Taiwan by China.
Those US China experts should change the way they think.
Neither China’s peaceful rise nor collapse is a bad thing since such an anti-humanistic regime as China’s should be overthrown at any rate. If the Chinese leadership wanted to engage in an external adventure to distract attention from its serious internal situation, it would dig its own grave. Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) is not as stupid as those experts think.
James Wang is a senior media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS