The National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, is the world’s largest ethnology museum, yet regrettably, this nationally funded institution has accepted the political propaganda of “one China.”
The “East Asia Regional Cultures of China” section on the museum’s Web site says that “China has 56 ethnic groups, composed of Han Chinese and 55 ethnic minorities.”
These “56 ethnic groups” and specifically the “55 ethnic minorities” are a taxonomy compiled by the Chinese government. Among the 55 are the so-called “high-mountain tribes” — meaning Taiwanese indigenous groups. The Web site also includes a map of the “distribution of ethnic groups in China.” Taiwan is included in this.
The exhibition hall itself is divided into 10 thematic exhibition areas including “Musical Instruments,” “Religion and Writing” and “Transmission of Chinese Tradition.”
There is also an exhibition area on “Taiwan Indigenous Peoples.”
Do the museum staff truly believe that Taiwan is a part of China or have they just capitulated to China’s demands?
The staff are no doubt aware that Taiwan is a country, as their map of “China” includes a line traversing down the middle of the Taiwan Strait to separate Taiwan and China.
However, this median line was only added to avoid complaints about “one China.”
Perhaps the staff are just trying to round their bases concerning Japan-China relations. There are plenty of academics in Japan who place a “one China” mention in their articles just to play it safe. However, those academics tend to be second-rate and have abandoned their common sense.
On Tuesday, I called the museum’s head offices and asked them to remove the references to “one China.”
The office said they “understood” that Taiwan is not part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and gave a half-baked explanation that the “China” referred to in the “Regional Cultures of China” exhibit was not referencing the PRC, but rather “areas with Chinese culture.”
However, I said: “The ‘China’ that the Japanese government refers to is the PRC. It doesn’t include Taiwan,” adding: “You should not lump Taiwanese indigenous groups in with the minority ethnic groups of the PRC — Taiwanese indigenous groups have nothing to do with ‘Chinese culture.’”
Still, the museum office staff insisted that many Taiwanese who visit the museum are quite happy to see an exhibition that includes Taiwanese indigenous groups.
In response I said: “Just because they are not making a fuss, does not mean that they are happy that the museum is purposely mislabeling them.”
The museum’s office said that up to 200,000 visitors visit the museum every year.
I told them: “Please do not mislead all these people into thinking that Taiwan is a part of China,” adding: “China’s ‘one China’ principle is political propaganda and the museum should not politicize academic research.”
I pressed them to take down their inaccurate displays, unsure of how a museum that has already aligned itself with Beijing’s propaganda might respond.
I realized that Taiwanese museum-goers’ charitable attitude and reluctance to complain gives this museum and others the false impression that they can explain away the severity of their bullying of Taiwan through their “one China” capitulation.
Both the government and Taiwanese must speak up and say that “Taiwan” is simply “Taiwan,” especially in this age of Chinese cognitive warfare.
This needs to be done as soon as possible and at every chance.
Hideki Nagayama is the chairman of the Taiwan Research Forum.
Translated by Tim Smith
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