|
Beijing sees culture as a weapon
By J. Michael Cole 寇謐將
Friday, Mar 05, 2010, Page 8
Addressing the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) on
Wednesday, Jia Qinglin (賈慶林), the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) No. 4 official
and chairman of the CPPCC national committee, reaffirmed his government’s
commitment to the “peaceful” development of cross-strait relations.
“We will constantly increase contacts with political parties, organizations,
social groups, influential figures from all walks of life and the general public
in Taiwan,” he told the more than 2,000 delegates at the Great Hall of the
People.
Then came a comment that should make us pause both for the strategy that it
highlights as for the lack of understanding of Taiwan that it elicits: “All this
[growing exchanges] greatly enhanced the acceptance of the Chinese nation and
Chinese culture by our Taiwan[ese] compatriots.”
Chinese officials have made no secret of the fact that they see Chinese culture
as a weapon by which to persuade Taiwanese to agree to annexation. After many
years of seeing Taiwan allegedly “drift” from its Chinese cultural heritage —
efforts that accelerated during the administration of former president Chen
Shui-bian (陳水扁) — Beijing is now seizing the opportunity created by the
presidency of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to impose a Chinese cultural template on
Taiwan. Given the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) acquiescence in this
endeavor, and Ma’s repeated references to Chinese culture, the situation is
somewhat reminiscent of Taiwan during the era of White Terror, when symbols of
Taiwaneseness, including the language, were barred from the media and Chinese —
as opposed to Taiwanese — history was taught in the nation’s schools.
As contact between the two sides accelerates and the creative industries
cross-pollinate (this will likely be mostly one way, given China’s greater
financial resources and censorship at home), the assault on Taiwanese
consciousness through cultural means will only intensify. By dint of repetition
and subtle changes here and there (on television, in schoolbooks and academic
forums), the Chinese plan could succeed in eroding Taiwanese cultural identity —
at least to a certain extent.
Other countries with a powerful neighbor, such as Canada vis-a-vis the US, have
often raised the specter of a culture threat, mostly through the flooding of
their domestic markets by films, music, literature and McDonald’s. Under such
circumstances, however, if there is a threat, it is an indirect one in that no
conscious effort is being made by Washington to shape minds through cultural
bombardment.
In Taiwan’s case, however, it has become rather clear that cultural influence is
no mere collateral — it is, in fact, the tip of a missile aimed straight at the
heart.
This effort at cultural transformation to achieve political objectives, however,
is of limited effectiveness and will be less likely to achieve its ultimate aims
if the strategy becomes too transparent (external factors, such as the Chinese
military threat, will also undermine such a strategy).
Comments such as those by Jia, to the effect that cross-strait exchanges
highlight “the acceptance of the Chinese nation and Chinese culture by ...
Taiwan[ese] compatriots,” underscore the political elements of China’s cultural
strategy and are an example of the transparency that could throw Beijing’s plans
off track. That is so because of the false assumptions that buttress those
efforts.
The willingness of Taiwanese to engage in more discussions with Chinese, to
watch Chinese movies, attend Chinese art expositions (or gaze at pandas) is
simply natural curiosity. By no means does this signify, however, that by doing
so Taiwanese accept the so-called Chinese nation — by which Beijing means “one
China” — or see it as their culture. Quebecers, for example, may show a great
deal of interest in a French troupe performing in Quebec City (or Hollywood
movies, for that matter), but this does not mean that they “accept” France, or
the US, as the seat of their culture.
A better analogy, perhaps, would be that of a Palestinian interested in learning
more about Israelis living across the fence by attending discussion groups
involving the two people. However high his interest might be, it remains purely
academic and under no circumstances would it imply the acceptance that
Palestinian land belongs to some Greater Israel.
If Beijing subscribes to the belief that interest in seeing things Chinese means
acceptance of its dominion over Taiwan, it is in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Slips like that made by Jia on Wednesday are not infrequent and should serve as
a warning to Taiwanese that for Beijing, nothing is sacred, or off limit, in its
pursuit of unification.
J. Michael Cole is an editor at the Taipei Times.
|
