The Chinese Communist Party has routinely used cultural folk elements such as the belief in deities such as Matsu for its “united front” work to propagate the idea that Taiwan belongs to China.
In a recent “united front” video, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army attempted to play the “Matsu card.”
Folk gods and goddesses are viewed differently in Taiwan and China. If these folk beliefs are to be seen as cultural assets, where is the culture most developed?
In ancient China, it was an emperor’s duty to worship heaven and earth. During the Ming and Qing dynasties, emperors called themselves “ministers of the mountains and rivers” to heaven, while ordinary people worshiped their own ancestors. From an ancient Chinese perspective, Taiwan has been so religious that if academics such as Han Yu (韓愈) and Ouyang Xiu (歐陽修) — who attached great importance to etiquette — came to Taiwan as officials, they would have done their best to put down the public’s folk beliefs.
The concept of “God bless Taiwan” has long been a part of Taiwanese daily life, but there has rarely been the concept of “God bless China” except in the case of the Boxer Rebellion during the late Qing Dynasty.
While Chinese folk culture originated in China, it has continued to develop in Taiwan, but which side is more important to such cultural assets?
Pearl milk tea, also known as “bubble tea,” is a common drink found in Taiwan, and its current version was developed in this nation.
However, milk tea originated from the Eurasian nomads. Does this mean that Taiwan, a milk-tea-loving nation, should be unified with Mongolia, Kazakhstan or other Eurasian countries?
Buddhism is also common in China. If China wanted to use Matsu as a “united front” tool against Taiwan, should India then use Buddha as a tool against China when another border dispute breaks out between them?
Jimway Chang
Kaohsiung
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