China following West’s example

Taipei Times: 24 February, 2018


Having been in Taiwan for approximately one month I have watched the constant commentary regarding the China-Taiwan crisis.  To state that it is an everyday event is not an exaggeration and to state that it gets little mention in my home country (Australia), beyond how the US and Japan are coping with the situation is also worth mentioning to highlight that distance separates concern.  The commentary has, not unexpectedly, drawn my attention to the immense pressure Taiwan, its people and its government are under and the future that it faces.  To further state that the pressure will not let-up is certain, and indeed its frictions will worsen is also not an exaggeration.  Whilst the recent articles in the Taipei Times—in particular, ‘Taiwan confronts its darkest hour’—reflect current concerns. The problem-at-hand however, goes much deeper than current times, as frightening as they are.   What appears to be missing in the understanding of why China is constantly pressing for the return of Taiwan to the mainland and of it being a ‘renegade state’—a term that was coined during the Clinton administration—is that of why the PRC government is persisting with its mantra.  What historical basis could it surely have beyond the Qing Dynasty ownership?  The answer, and one that does not get much press is, gaining territory through threat-of-force and when this has not worked direct force, is what China has learned from the West.

The forthrightness alluded to, began in 1648 when the West essentially became united.   The Treaty of Westphalia is essentially, where it all begins for the West and it was in 1648 that a final agreement was reached by the elites of Western Europe (modern day northwest Germany), that a treaty would be agreed upon and what is known as sovereign statehood would be born.  It is a germane yet necessary point to make that the notion of sovereignty was a construct of the West and essentially, one that would benefit the West.  Nevertheless, sovereign statehood was supposed to be a geographic delineation of territory in order for each state to understand where its boundaries were located, and therefore ease tensions.  This would work for those that were ‘educated’ and had definite understandings of distance and ownership.  This said, the mandates within the treaty were summarily over time, thrust upon the tribal peoples, feudal societies, clans and other groups that would have border-lines cut through their territory, sovereign statehood would be brutally enforced—especially in Africa—and as a result it is the method of operation and understanding that all countries rely on today.  Being able to distinguish a ‘space and place’ extramural to one’s own territory immediately allowed for geographical locales to be gained and claimed by powerful nation-states beyond their own perimeters.  England would run rampant over the ‘known world’ and through its ‘successes’ occupy or at the very least control an enormous amount of territory some seventy percent of the known world. England’s ‘territory’ would stretch from Northern Ireland to terra nullius (Australia); France would occupy vast swathes of territory from North America through to Oceania; Italy, Portugal and Britain would claim Africa, the Dutch would control Indonesia. This is to only some actions of powerful nation-states as they colonised, brutalised and used threat-of-force to gain what they thought of as ‘theirs.’   Powerful Western and Western-orientated nation-states would sweep all before them; and to be sure some powerful Asian countries would seek their own regional dominance as the idea sovereignty took hold.

As science and technology improved and powerful nation-states became more adept at travel and conquering they sought as much as they possibly could, and this applied to Eastern as well as Western powers: Japan would conquer Manchuria (twice) and occupy Formosa (Taiwan); and eventually occupy territory as far east as the Marshall Islands.   Some small nations would be rent asunder by the requirements of powerful nation-states.  The native peoples of Diego Garcia would be forced off their land by the US in agreement with the British; the American-Indians would slaughtered and those that remained would be forced on to reservations; the mainland-US would steal Hawaii from an Hawaiian princess; the Spanish would allow the US to occupy Guam without any consultation with the indigenous people; many of the Indigenous population of Australia would be murdered and their children stolen from them; the Dutch would rule Indonesia with an ‘iron fist,’ earning the slang-term ‘red devils’ for their deeds.  The list goes on.

China, after the impositions of the treaty would languish in relative poverty and isolation for centuries.  After its own trials and tribulations however, it would emerge from the doldrums of its own induced pain and suffering, and the pain and suffering force upon it and like a phoenix rise from the ashes of its past.  In the process, which can be traced to the mid-1990s it would begin to assert its ‘needs and wants’ in more definitive and aggressive ways.  Taiwan would feel the increased rancour of claim immediately, Japan would be chastised for its lack of atonement for its misdeeds and crimes—after all, Germany had apologised for its past military actions—and China would begin to build interconnected military bases in its region with an eye to the rest of the world.  China would begin to do as Britain, France and the US had done before.  Because of the improvements in science and technology China would lay claim to sea-rights and (now) atolls.  The US has thrown up its arms in protest at China doing what it has effectively, been taught to do by the West.  Taiwan has become the epicentre of the tug-of-war between the West and the East, as is Pakistan for Central Asia.


Taiwan is yet to confront its ‘darkest hour,’ as China has not invaded.  The gloom before darkness however, is the abysmal and pathetic example the West has set, in particular in the twentieth century—when it was supposed to be ‘civilised’—in the policing of, and the commensurate offering of good and auspicious governance.   Should China actually commit to bringing Taiwan to war, it will be because China has learned the despicable and utterly reprehensible examples ‘civilised,’ liberal-democratic and powerful nation-states of the world have sent it.  One can only hope the reason the United Nations was born—diplomacy over war—wins out in the tussle for Asia-Pacific peace; and that China does not take the example of the West’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as how to solve predicaments.


Strobe Drive holds a PhD in war studies and is the recipient of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Center for Chinese Studies, Fellowship 2018.  The views expressed here are his own.

This entry was posted in Asia-Pacific Politics, Asian Century Politics, Australian politics, international relations, Rise of China, taiwan, Taiwan politics, Uncategorized, war and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s