On the Situation in Taiwan

According to the story, here's what happened recently in the disputed waters between Taiwan and the Philippines.  A Taiwanese fishing boat ventured into the disputed waters during which another boat from the Philippine Coast Guard intercepted it.  For unclear reasons, the latter fired at the fishing vessel, killing one fisherman.

But here is something I found interesting.  Someone submitted an online petition to President Obama (petitions.whitehouse.gov) about this.  The petition says:

We petition the Obama Administration to provide necessary assistance to prevent Taiwanese people from being murdered by Philippines and rebuild friendship.

I was intrigued partly because of the strong language employed.  To be sure, one person was killed, but murder?  This could only be determined after a detailed probe into the matter.  But even so, how did a fisherman become symbolic of a "people"?  In other words, why is the petition worded such that it is to prevent Taiwanese people from being murdered by [the] Philippines?  This warrants further reflection.

This is not the first time in world history such a situation (an individual becoming symbolic of a group) unfolded.  However, in previous times when it did, the context was oppression, generally by a more powerful party.  So, in the United States, during the height of segregation (think: racial oppression against Black folk) Emmett Till's death became symbolic of the Black situation.  It catalyzed the Civil Rights Movement into ramping up its efforts towards racial equality.  The famous picture of a Chinese man standing in front of a row of tanks in 1989 is a powerful symbolism of freedom because the context surrounding the picture was oppression.

So, a fisherman can become symbolic of a people because Taiwan considers itself an "oppressed" minority.  But here, I need to issue a caution, because "oppression" is an easy moniker to call by anybody.  Ever since Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's celebrated essay on subalternity, various scholars have embarked on quests to identify with it.  Eventually, subalternity becomes conflated with all marginalized groups.  That, however, is not subalternity.  Indeed, as Spivak notes herself, everybody likes to claim subalternity.  But flippant claims happen because the claimant is detached from him/her own location.  It is easy, for example, for me to claim as a man that "I am subaltern" because many job positions are affirmative action (so, all else equal, women should be preferred over men).  But, in making that claim, I have detached myself from the fact that, as a man, I have been privy to a wide variety of social, cultural, and psychological privileges that women must overcome.

Taiwan presents an excellent example of this.  I do not consider Taiwan "oppressed" or "marginalized."  Such a view, when called lightly, is entirely ignorant of Taiwan's own history.  Consider that the aboriginal Taiwanese (in my view, only they can legitimately call themselves Taiwanese) were pushed to the infertile and resource-poor eastern coast of Taiwan as emigrants from the mainland increasingly came to settle in Taiwan.  I'm not talking solely about the Kuomintang emigrants arriving with Chiang Kai-Shek.  I'm talking also about the colonizing Chinese who followed with Zheng Cheng-gong in the 17th century, or Admiral Shi Liang shortly later.  The Chinese in Taiwan cannot consider themselves "oppressed" without owning up to their role in oppressing the indigenous Taiwanese.  Today's aboriginals remain some of the poorest and least educated segments of Taiwanese population, constituting further evidence of this oppression by the descendants of Han Chinese immigrants.

BUT, the argument can be made that Taiwan can be considered oppressed at least politically.  Taiwan is not offered a seat in the United Nations, and its membership in various UN organizations is routinely opposed by China.  Thus, when the Philippine Coast Guard - here, representing a sovereign and globally-recognized nation - kills a Taiwanese fisherman, the event is interpreted as a full-fledged recognized nation infringing on the territory of an unrecognized nation.  Here, however, we must recognize that the event occurred in disputed waters.  Thus, according to the Philippine government, it was the Taiwanese fishing vessel that entered Philippine territory, giving the Coast Guard a rationale to fire on the fishing boat should it present itself to be of credible threat.  No undisputed territory is being infringed.  Thus, political oppression is difficult to claim.  After all, to turn the tables around, the Philippines can claim to be economically oppressed, and that the fishing vessel's incursion into Philippine waters was an attempt to exercise undue economic control over disputed territory.

But I'm not out of the waters yet.  A Philippine envoy was dispatched to apologize for the actions, conveying a personal message from the Philippine president.  Taiwan rejected the apology on the basis that they did not come from a "higher authority."  In other words, it was not an official apology.  But an official apology is not politically possible; the Philippines abides by the "one China" policy, and that is the mainland China.  That may be true, but there is surprising lack of response to the Mainland's response to the crisis, which is solidarity with Taiwan.  We need to note, however, that the solidarity is not out of charity, but out of the assumption that Taiwan is a Chinese province.  Thus, Taiwan's borders must apply because they are China's.  For that reason, I am confused by the situation.  Where is the rebutting of China's solidarity?

For those reasons above, I suspect that the petition's center of gravity cannot be based on Congress' 1979 treaty promising protection to Taiwan.  Thus, the petition's crux is that Taiwan is key to the interests of the United States.  But this is not spelled out in detail: why is Taiwan key to American interests?  In other words, to put it bluntly, why is Taiwan crucial to ensuring the superiority of the American Empire?

To put it bluntly, CHINA is key to the interests of the United States.  Thus, President George W. Bush was clear during Chen Shui-bian's presidency that the United States does not have unlimited means to protect Taiwan if they continue to push the independence agenda.  This was a far cry from President Eisenhower who actually visited Taiwan in 1960 as President.  Indeed, to be frank, America's only interest in Taiwan comes from the fact that Taiwan is a regular purchaser of American-made weaponry.  It is, in other words, advantageous for America to maintain Taiwan's insecurity boundary-wise in order that there remains a political incentive to purchase weaponry.  America's assurance of superiority will not come from Taiwan, but from neighboring superpowers such as South Korea and Japan.

All this to say, the proposal to President Obama essentially backfires, and is only fed by the inculcation of a "Taiwanese imaginary."  The problem with imaginaries, however, is precisely that: it is entirely capable of being harnessed for power plays.  This means that Taiwan is, consciously or unconsciously, ever in the orbit of China's, Japan's, or the United States' influence.  The proposal backfires because by hearkening on the United States for influence, Taiwan reasserts itself as anything but an independent country.  Rather, it asserts itself as a vassal state, to be traded for favor in the Asia-Pacific "Ring of Power."  For Taiwan to really claim legitimacy requires it to be serious about developing what is so unique about it.  And to be clear, since language is often a denominator of culture, Taiwanese is to Fujianese as Singaporean Chinese is to Mandarin.  Which is to say, they are very much the same.  If the Taiwanese want to inculcate a unique Taiwanese culture, it will continually fall on its face if it does not delve deep into its aboriginal history.  Only then can Taiwan claim subalternity and use that as a basis for requesting help.