13 Comments
User's avatar
Erik at Dilemma Works's avatar

Obvious to anyone with a brain. Meaning nobody in the US.

Expand full comment
Inverteum Capital's avatar

Yes. Unfortunately, ignorance about international relations is common in the US.

Example: US Senator can't tell the difference between China and Singapore: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sAkInjju3ww

Expand full comment
Jacob B's avatar

Great article. I agree. I’ve always had the though that if Xi wanted to invade Taiwan, he would’ve already. But he knows the cost.

Expand full comment
Inverteum Capital's avatar

💯

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

Your use of the term “Taiwanese” is confusing and often inaccurate. Only 51% of Taiwan’s population is Taiwanese, and even the Taiwanese recognize they are Chinese, from the FuJian area.

Expand full comment
Inverteum Capital's avatar

The issue with using the term "Chinese" to describe Taiwan residents is that the average English speaker wouldn't know the difference between PRC Chinese (中國人) and ethnic Chinese (華人). They would assume "Chinese" implies PRC.

"Taiwanese" is the simplest way to describe those currently living in Taiwan.

The use of demonyms for residents of a certain place don't have to imply sovereignty, e.g. New Yorker, Scottish, Hawaiian, Shanghainese.

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

By the way, I believe Capt. Kelly wanted us to ask “Are you Taiwanese?” was twofold. He wanted us to see the issue and…

In 1972 folks at the U.S. Embassy were aware there was tension between the Taiwanese and the non-Taiwanese.

In 1953, my friend Bert Frauleigh while working for AID deliberately sought out a Taiwanese person to create Formosa Plastics. Bert chose Wang Yung Ching and the two were still close friends when they visited Formosa Plastics in Texas.

I think moving our Embassy from Taipei to Beijing caused a growing lack of understanding of the issues, and that, I think, is how the U.S. government stumbled into the National Endowment for Democracy and promoting Taiwan insurrection.

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

I only say “Taiwanese” if the person really is Taiwanese.

If I don’t know, or if I know they are Hakka or Shandong or Polynesian etc, I just say “a resident of Taiwan”. I say “Taiwan people “…

In 1972 we flew to Taiwan and landed at the old airport in downtown Taipei. The Naval Attache to China was Navy Captain William Kelly.

Capt. Kelly wanted to enhance our learning experience and he gave us two tasks:

1. Tell us what the Chinese do at sea. (They sail point to point with no drills)

2. Ask your shipmates “Are you Taiwanese?” I learned that is a very big question, and I learned both Taiwanese and non-Taiwanese can be offended.

On our ship, none of the officers were Taiwanese. I think the % of officers who are Taiwanese is still below 50%. The Taiwan separatists will not get the military to fight to become a Taiwanese military. Taiwanese is still a foreign language to most.

Even if an officer is Taiwanese, he is unlikely to know Taiwanese military vocabulary.

“One” in Mandarin is 一 yi

But in the Mandarin speaking military (both mainland and Taiwan) “one” is “yao4”

“130” is yao4san1dong4, not yi san ling.

Expand full comment
Inverteum Capital's avatar

The US's role in this issue will likely diminish in importance over time, especially as China's hard and soft power grows. There are big problems domestically in the US, and Americans don't want to be in a conflict with China. Even the trade war earlier this year was unsustainable. Washington politicians know that conflict with China, even over trade, isn't going to win elections.

After the KMT retreated to Taiwan in 1949, there were major tensions between the mainlanders (外省人) and natives (本省人); you saw this when working with the ROC military in the 1970s. Since then, assimilation and intermarriage, democratization, and policies to recruit natives into government and to reduce ethnic discrimination have led to a greater sense of shared identity.

Although some of your ROC shipmates identified as Chinese, the government they represented was very militaristic and anti-PRC and did not seek to create peace in the Taiwan strait. Under Project National Glory (1961-72), Chiang Kai-shek sought to reconquer Mainland China. Paradoxically, this hardline stance made it much harder for Beijing and Taipei to work with the other side in any way.

Thankfully, Taiwan has become far less militaristic and far more peace-loving while the policies Chiang put in place, such as mandating the use of Mandarin, make it easier for people on both sides to understand and work with each other. This is reason for optimism when it comes to cross-strait relations and continued peace, regardless of what demonym is used to describe those who live in Taiwan.

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

In 1958, Chiang Kai Shek asked for U.S. support to topple Mao. At the time, I believe it could have succeeded, but Eisenhower knew the cost of war on the Chinese mainland, especially in the beginning of mass starvation.

I wrote about the longest artillery battle in human history. The 1961-1972 program was Chiang’s desire to topple Mao after the Great Starvation.

“Taiwan has become less militaristic”. I am mixed on this. I agree but, even when they were very aggressive, so much was theater. My Naval Academy classmates thought it was funny.

The major division today is: Chiang Kai Shek treated the Taiwanese unjustly so today the Taiwan separatists want revenge against all Chinese, including those on the mainland who were not part of Chiang Kai Shek’s rule.

I think the 1992 peace agreement laid out a workable arrangement for folks in Taiwan and the mainland…it gave Taiwan unchallenged autonomy for an unlimited time. That will be the basis of any peace agreement.

Regarding Chiang’s aggressive attitude toward Mao, I think this will give you a chuckle. https://open.substack.com/pub/bill575555/p/war-with-chinese-characteristics?r=50tspg&utm_medium=ios

Expand full comment
Inverteum Capital's avatar

Always great to hear your perspective.

Eisenhower is a great example of a military leader who deeply understood the pitfalls of war and thus sought to avoid it when he could.

It is interesting that Taiwan separatism is in response to Chiang's unjust rule under the White Terror. In that case, a critical task for Beijing is to present itself as a foil to the KMT under Chiang by relying more heavily on soft power.

The 1992 consensus will absolutely be critical as the basis for any negotiations between Beijing and Taipei.

Great post! Read and liked it a while back.

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

“a critical task for Beijing is to present itself as a foil to the KMT”

I am torn on this

Both the KMT and the CCP agree on One China

In a three way fight, should the CCP align with the KMT against the DPP?

Today both the CCP and the DPP refuse to say “Republic of China “…so in that way the DPP aligns with the CCP.

Old habits linger. At least we no longer hear “Mao fei” on Taiwan and little girls on the mainland can be named Plum Flower again.

Expand full comment