The contest for the control of the discourse about Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan rages--in the liberal democratic West. It rages, as well, under the guidance and leadership of its leading press organs. These organs, of course, are closely tied to the complex economic structures of ownership within which they are nestled. To some extent, then decisions about amplification of voices, narrative centering, and legitimacy nudging reflects as much the insertion of these press elements into the discourse itself rather than as agents of reporting. It also serves their self interest, augmenting their role as gatekeepers and curators of information and its interpretation for the (sometimes educated) masses whose management is an essential feature of liberal democracy as practices in the United States. A sign of the importance of their role is the extent to which political figures seek to use and be used by such press apparatus to advance their agendas, make their cases, or curry favor with this or that group--including the relatively small and quite self reflexive collective clique of people who manage the great US press organs. The role of the press, thus understood, is indeed, critical to the proper functioning of the complicated and diffused power systems of liberal democracy.
This is well known.
It is well known enough for foreigners to seek to use the press as an outlet for participation in national debates. The efforts, of course, are meant to make their case, or to make the case for their vanguards, with the American people--and others in the liberals democratic camp. At worst, it reflects the sort of direct projection of foreign views that in a Marxist Leninist context might be evidence of taboo black hand (黑手) foreign interference in international national affairs . But Americans are very broad minded about this--as long as one avoids too close an association with the voting process or elections. The line is fairly murky though; clearer, in China than in the US.
Still, the temptation--for both foreigners, leading domestic political figures, and the Washington Post is too great to resist. And the press provides a well developed field on which the war, already commenced, may be fought on its discursive front lines.
And thus the great debate on exhibit in the discursive Colosseum that is the Washington Post between Nancy Pelosi (
Why I’m leading a congressional delegation to Taiwan (2 August 2022)) and the response by Qin Gang, Chinese Ambassador to the US: Why China Objects to Pelosi's Visit to Taiwan (4 August 2022)). Together they suggest the great gulf that now divides the two imperial lifeworlds, a gap that makes it virtually impossible to communicate--if only because the definitions of a common vocabulary now are given sometimes quite different meanings and emphasis depending on whether they are used by the US or the Chinese side--a strategically useful set of incomprehensibility built into a common language. The object, of course is internal, language drift reflects the imperatives of growing ideological divides that are reflected in language and word meaning. But it is also instrumental--it is much easier to manage opinion if one can appeal to an opponent's masses using common language but in an uncommon way. If done well, even the most sophisticated cadres of the Washington Post and their political-class circle, will find it difficult to disentangle and can themselves be more amendable to directed curation. In this case, the temptation to evidence one's ignorance and strong sense of self was irresistible to the good people at the Post: The Post's View: Pelosi should go to Taiwan — when the time is right. One should be interested in the views of leading press organs--if only because they are important instruments of popular mobilization. More important, though, are the opinions of leading figures in what is shaping up to the agreement by the United States and China that NOW is the time to more openly reshape the fundamental relationship between the imperial structures of the US and China, and that Taiwan will serve nicely as the inflection point for this pivot into the new era of pose-global empire and imperial redrawing of the global map.
Make no mistake, one ought not to read with view for the truth or correctness of what is put in their respective text. Their factual verities are as solid as sand in the desert on a windy day; even as the ideological foundation on which this sand blows provides much more solid footing. That is hardly the point of either Mrs. Pelosi's argument, or Mr. Qin's reply. Instead it is the atmospherics and discursive significations that make these short statements worth the read. Thus, their factual verities are useful only as a means to the identification of taxonomies of meaning and their underlying ideology--a grimoire of incantations in the form of rationalized systems of interpretation as applied ideology. These interpretive statements proffered up for consumption as fact vest a specific signification of key events that provide much richer clues about the distance between empires, their intentions, and the ideological chasm that may make any sort of resolution (other than status quo) impossible. Both statements are rich in that way.
In that context, sovereignty stands out. One can understand Chinese frustrations--having spent the greater part of almost a century and a half making up for the decay and political failings of the imperial machinery in its twilight on the basis of 19th and early 20th century notions of hyper sovereignty, their history in that respect is thwarted precisely because much of the rest of the world has now moved on. The basis of their sovereign claims are strong--viewed from the vantage point of 1943. But in a world that has been transformed at the international level because of the institutions crafted after 1945, all of the ideology either becomes meaningless to the rest of the world or threatening to the post-global world order in which sovereignty has been fractured, divided and exercised in new and transnational ways. The Chinese will find this hard going. That lesson may be learned in the Taiwan crisis; more likely in after action reports about challenges to the Belt and Road project. At the same time one can understand US frustration as well.
The Americans find themselves on the defensive with respect to a system they appear incapable of making work in their own heartland. And their inaction in the face of direct and indirect challenges to what has been a clear ideological victory in the early 1990s, has now reduced the Anglo-European-US vision of an internationalized order grounded in free movement and an increasingly legalized system of human (and sustainability) rights (the "
the rules-based international order" highlighted in the G7 statement), to a paridy of itself. That, compounded with debilitating internecine warfare (on personal, political. ideological, and cultural grounds) of its own entrenched nomenklatura and political elites (in the organs of public power, economic institutions and among the intelligentsia) have produced the pathetic spectacle of the necessity for the Speaker of the US House of Representatives to take the decisive action that neither recent Democratic nor Republican Administrations have been able to muster with some modicum of national solidarity. The Americans have lost their way in the present as much as the Chinese have gotten lost in the ideology of their recent history. That sense of being lost, of being swallowed up by forces now beyond singular control, that is what these interventions mirror back to us. And that intensifies the danger of reckless adventurism, and miscalculation far more than any sort of clearheaded thinking. The decisions have been taken; the trajectories are increasingly hard to modify; and their consequences will extend well beyond an island whose sovereignty has been transferred through the legitimating (for a long time) process of colonization, de-indigenization, and military victory by those who then had the power to make good on those acts and decisions (here, here, here, here, here).
August 2, 2022 at 10:52 a.m. EDT
Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, is speaker of the House of Representatives.
Some 43 years ago, the United States Congress overwhelmingly passed — and President Jimmy Carter signed into law — the Taiwan Relations Act, one of the most important pillars of U.S. foreign policy in the Asia Pacific.
The
Taiwan Relations Act set out America’s commitment to a democratic
Taiwan, providing the framework for an economic and diplomatic
relationship that would quickly flourish into a key partnership. It
fostered a deep friendship rooted in shared interests and values:
self-determination and self-government, democracy and freedom, human
dignity and human rights.
And
it made a solemn vow by the United States to support the defense of
Taiwan: “to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by
other than peaceful means … a threat to the peace and security of the
Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.”
Today,
America must remember that vow. We must stand by Taiwan, which is an
island of resilience. Taiwan is a leader in governance: currently, in
addressing the covid-19 pandemic and championing environmental
conservation and climate action. It is a leader in peace, security and
economic dynamism: with an entrepreneurial spirit, culture of innovation
and technological prowess that are envies of the world.
Yet, disturbingly, this vibrant, robust democracy — named one of the freest in the world by Freedom House and proudly led by a woman, President Tsai Ing-wen — is under threat.
In
recent years, Beijing has dramatically intensified tensions with
Taiwan. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has ramped up patrols of
bombers, fighter jets and surveillance aircraft near and even over
Taiwan’s air defense zone, leading the U.S. Defense Department to conclude that China’s army is “likely preparing for a contingency to unify Taiwan with the PRC by force.”
The
PRC has also taken the fight into cyberspace, launching scores of
attacks on Taiwan government agencies each day. At the same time,
Beijing is squeezing Taiwan economically, pressuring global corporations
to cut ties with the island, intimidating countries that cooperate with
Taiwan, and clamping down on tourism from the PRC.
In
the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) accelerating
aggression, our congressional delegation’s visit should be seen as an
unequivocal statement that America stands with Taiwan, our democratic
partner, as it defends itself and its freedom.
Our visit
— one of several congressional delegations to the island — in no way
contradicts the long-standing one-China policy, guided by the Taiwan
Relations Act of 1979, the U.S.-China Joint Communiques and the Six
Assurances. The United States continues to oppose unilateral efforts to
change the status quo.
Our
visit is part of our broader trip to the Pacific — including Singapore,
Malaysia, South Korea and Japan — focused on mutual security, economic
partnership and democratic governance. Our discussions with our
Taiwanese partners will focus on reaffirming our support for the island
and promoting our shared interests, including advancing a free and open
Indo-Pacific region. America’s solidarity with Taiwan is more important
today than ever — not only to the 23 million people of the island but
also to millions of others oppressed and menaced by the PRC.
Thirty
years ago, I traveled in a bipartisan congressional delegation to
China, where, in Tiananmen Square, we unfurled a black-and-white banner
that read, “To those who died for democracy in China.” Uniformed police
pursued us as we left the square. Since then, Beijing’s abysmal human
rights record and disregard for the rule of law continue, as President
Xi Jinping tightens his grip on power.
The CCP’s brutal crackdown against Hong Kong’s political freedoms and human rights — even arresting Catholic Cardinal Joseph Zen
— cast the promises of “one-country, two-systems” into the dustbin. In
Tibet, the CCP has long led a campaign to erase the Tibetan people’s
language, culture, religion and identity. In Xinjiang, Beijing is
perpetrating genocide against Muslim Uyghurs and other minorities. And
throughout the mainland, the CCP continues to target and arrest
activists, religious-freedom leaders and others who dare to defy the
regime.
We cannot stand by as the CCP proceeds to threaten Taiwan — and democracy itself.
Indeed,
we take this trip at a time when the world faces a choice between
autocracy and democracy. As Russia wages its premeditated, illegal war
against Ukraine, killing thousands of innocents — even children — it is
essential that America and our allies make clear that we never give in
to autocrats.
When
I led a congressional delegation to Kyiv in April — the highest-level
U.S. visit to the besieged nation — I conveyed to President Volodymyr
Zelensky that we admired his people’s defense of democracy for Ukraine
and for democracy worldwide.
By
traveling to Taiwan, we honor our commitment to democracy: reaffirming
that the freedoms of Taiwan — and all democracies — must be respected.
__________
August 4, 2022at 6:44 p.m. EDT
Qin Gang is the Chinese Ambassador to the Untied States.
Taiwan has been an inseparable part of China’s territory for 1,800 years. In 1943, the leaders of China, the United States and Britain issued the Cairo Declaration, which clearly states that all territories Japan stole from the Chinese, such as Taiwan, shall be restored to China. The Potsdam Declaration of 1945 affirmed that the terms of the Cairo Declaration would be carried out. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, recognized that the representatives of the government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations.
When China and the United States established diplomatic relations on Jan. 1, 1979, the United States recognized in the joint communique with China that the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China. Four decades have passed since, and the United States has long been committed to not developing official relations with Taiwan.
By order of succession, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is the third-highest-ranking official in the U.S. government. Traveling in a military aircraft, Pelosi paid a high-profile “official visit to Taiwan” this week, as her office described it in her arrival statement, and was given full-protocol treatment by Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party authorities, who make no secret of pursuing independence in their party platform. Such a visit has openly broken America’s commitment not to develop official relations with Taiwan.
These are extremely irresponsible, provocative and dangerous moves.
The one-China principle is part of the postwar international order and has become a general international consensus. As a country that thinks of itself as a champion of the “rules-based international order,” the United States should naturally abide by the one-China principle.
In the past, the United States has violated and undermined the principle by adopting the Taiwan Relations Act and the “Six Assurances” to Taiwan. And it is doing so again now in a broader attempt to unilaterally change the status quo on Taiwan and alter the postwar international order.
Fifty years ago, Henry Kissinger, who was personally involved in the negotiations for the normalization of China-U.S. relations, witnessed how the Taiwan question was properly handled on the basis of the one-China principle. Recently, he noted, “The United States should not by subterfuge or by a gradual process develop something of a ‘two-China’ solution.”
People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese. China will show the utmost sincerity and make the utmost efforts to achieve peaceful reunification, but China will not allow Taiwan to be divided from it in whatever form.
The current Taiwan authorities have rejected the facts and legal grounds that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same China, in a pursuit of independence with the help of the United States. Their tactics include trying to sever historical and cultural bonds with the mainland, erasing national identity and stoking confrontation. The United States, meanwhile, sees Taiwan as a means to contain China and has been hollowing out the one-China principle. In the past 18 months alone, the United States has made five rounds of arms sales to Taiwan.
President Biden has said many times that the United States will not change its one-China policy and does not support “Taiwan independence.” But for the “Taiwan independence” forces, Pelosi’s visit represents an exceptionally strong signal that “the U.S. is on Taiwan’s side.” This goes against the one-China principle, the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques and America’s own commitments. Moreover, the Pelosi visit will lead “Taiwan independence” forces further down a dangerous path, with peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait hanging in the balance.
Just think: If an American state were to secede from the United States and declare independence, and then some other nation provided weapons and political support for that state, would the U.S. government — or the American people — allow this to happen?
The Taiwan question is about China’s sovereignty and unity — not democracy. But it is true that Pelosi’s visit has aroused the indignation of the 1.4 billion Chinese people. If the United States truly takes democracy to heart, it should show respect for the call of the Chinese people, who constitute about one-fifth of the world population.
With both covid--19 and the Ukraine conflict growing into protracted crises, it is high time for China and the United States to strengthen cooperation and work with other countries to find solutions. Instead, some politicians choose to damage China’s core interests, either to seek the limelight or to cement their political legacy. Their actions will only erode China-U.S. relations and subject our peoples and militaries to peril.
Taiwan is one of the very few issues that might take China and the United States to conflict. Extra caution and a sense of responsibility are indispensable when it comes to Taiwan.
No comments:
Post a Comment