Where I find myself on the map of ideas

FRIDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2022

[Result of my investigation: I associate strongly with aspects of Libertarianism, Conservatism, and Liberalism. Further investigation makes it clear that I am a political centrist, and can comfortably describe myself as a supporter of positive nihilism. In terms of religious beliefs, I have known for years that I can most accurately describe myself as ignostic.]

* * *

With the obsession particularly in the West with identity and labels, and groups and ideological tribes, I thought it would be a useful exercise to look at a map of ideas and plant my flag somewhere to say: “This is where I find myself.”

I’ll start with politics. A bit of research confirmed that I am not loyal to any ideology or political tribe. My values do correspond more to principles typical of certain ideologies, if one considers that political philosophies are generally broad, and that there is much debate about what Conservative or Liberal is, or what Left or Right means by the third decade of the twenty-first century.

I am Conservative in the sense that I believe in the value of traditional social institutions such as family, marriage, and educational institutions that teach young people how to think. I am also Conservative because I believe in minimal government intervention in the economy, and because I believe in personal responsibility, and free market capitalism. I am opposed to rapid change in society – revolutions in France in the eighteenth century, revolutions in Russia in the twentieth century, and other examples of rapid change make it clear that reform is likely to lead to less destruction of life and property. Furthermore, I believe in the right of every country to defend itself against hostile action from another state, but I am opposed to war far from your own borders in order to carry out some policy devised behind closed doors. Patriotism and religion also both play an important role in the creation of a stable society, as long as it is perfectly acceptable if you are not patriotic or religious.

Because I believe that personal freedom and equality before the Law are important goals of society, because I believe that the government should play a role in protecting these values, and even in promoting the general welfare of the citizens of a state, I can also be considered a supporter of Liberalism – to an extent.

However, because I go beyond traditional Liberalism and believe that individuals should be free to do as they please as long as it does not harm anyone else, and because I believe that governments should be kept on a short leash when it comes to intervening in the economy and in personal behaviour, I can also be seen as a Libertarian – or a supporter of certain principles of Libertarianism. (Incidentally, Classical Liberalism is seen as the ancestor of modern-day Libertarianism.)

I can also confirm that I am not a Socialist, because I do not believe that means of production such as factories and land should be jointly owned and controlled by the community. I also do not support the creation of a planned economy, whereby the government manages the distribution of resources and services. As I have already mentioned, I also do not believe, like Socialists do, that the government should play a strong role in meeting the needs of the citizens of the state.

As I understand it, I also cannot identify myself with the Social Democrats, although the idea of a welfare state where the government provides for the basic needs of its citizens, such as health care, education, and social security, sounds pleasant enough. Problem is, can you as an individual really be free if you depend on the state for your basic care? How easy is it for the state to withhold certain services and resources because you protest too much about some government policy, or express too much criticism about some government official? How much room is provided for individual freedom and personal responsibility? Honest question. Another thing, as much as I want to claim maximum individual freedom for myself, I must acknowledge that not everyone is equally competent to look after their own welfare.

In terms of political systems, the ideal is a liberal democracy, where the government is elected in regular, free, and fair elections, and where basic rights and freedoms are guaranteed.

Speaking of rights and freedoms: You’d easily think that any decent person would be an advocate of human rights, but there is a difference between positive and negative rights. Negative rights prohibit other people or the government from taking specific actions against the holder of rights. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and property, and the prohibition of slavery and torture. These rights are called “negative” because they require other people or the state to refrain from doing certain things rather than taking certain actions. Positive rights, on the other hand, provide the holder of rights with a claim against another person or the state for goods, services, or specific treatment. It requires other people or the state to take active steps to provide certain things – therefore they are called “positive” rights. These rights include the right to education, health care, and a reasonable wage for work.

What types of rights do I support? I always thought it sounded noble and generous that everyone has a right to a proper education, health care, and other good things. The question is, how much will it cost to enforce all these positive rights, and who pays for them? Who is appointed to positions of influence over other people and who is placed in control of enormous amounts of money to fulfil these ideals?

A discussion of the management of society would not be complete without a cursory glance at Anarchism. Especially in the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, anarchists campaigned for the abolition of government and the creation of a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. Anarchists believe that government and other forms of authority are unnecessary and oppressive, and that individuals and communities should be free to make their own decisions and organise themselves without interference. The idea has always appealed to me, but I believe it could only work if society consisted of millions of small communities – with probably nothing more than a few hundred members, and no central or national government. This means the world as we know it today with nations and national histories and symbols will be a thing of the past. Can it work if we start from scratch – if a comet hits the Earth again and the survivors crawl out of their hiding places after a few weeks to rebuild a society from the ground up? Possibly then.

More workable is the idea of political centrism – an ideology whose adherents believe that the best approach to solving social and economic issues is to find a balance between left and right. Political centrists generally support a moderate, pragmatic approach to governance, with a focus on finding common ground and compromises to achieve the best possible result. A balanced approach to the economy is often advocated, with a mix of government regulation and free market principles. Supporters of political centrism typically believe in individual liberty, the protection of human rights, and the rule of law.

In terms of philosophy of life, or understanding of, and outlook on, life, I associate myself quite comfortably with positive nihilism.

Positive nihilism recognises the inherent meaninglessness of life, but instead of falling into despair or finding solace in this state of affairs, positive nihilists seek to create their own meaning and value in life. Positive nihilism is said to involve the rejection of traditional sources of meaning and value, such as established religion and societal norms, and is often associated with a focus on personal freedom and autonomy, as well as a rejection of dogmatic beliefs. The bottom line – for me: Life may be inherently meaningless, but that’s no excuse to waste your time on Earth and create no value in your own life and the lives of other people.

If you ask about religion and faith, my position is between that of the theist – who argues that God exists, and the atheist – who argues that God does not exist. Ignosticism is described as a philosophical position which holds that the concept of “God” is so ill-defined and vague that it is impossible to say whether God exists or not, and that rational inquiry or debate is therefore not possible. As such, ignostics do not take a stand on the existence or non-existence of God. Ignosticism is often seen as a form of agnosticism, as both philosophies reject the possibility of knowing whether God exists or not. The difference is that agnostics believe that the existence of God is unknowable, while ignostics, as mentioned, argue that the concept of “God” itself is too vague and poorly defined to take the question further.

Another issue that has heated up to a feverish temperature in the last decade or so is that of transgenderism, and specifically the question of how to define “man” and “woman”. In this regard, I believe the following:

1. There are two sexes, male and female. Primary differences include chromosomes and reproductive cells – female bodies have the ability to produce large gametes (egg cells), and male bodies have the ability to produce small gametes (sperm cells).

2. Gender is not blindly assigned to babies after birth but observed in the genitals.

3. No child or adult is born in the wrong body – a “mistake”, so many people believe, that must then be “corrected” with puberty blockers, hormone treatment and operations.

4. In free, liberal democracies, the expression of personality is not limited to gender stereotypes. Frequently cited examples include that girls may prefer short hair and climb trees without identifying as boys, and boys may like playing with dolls without identifying as girls. Grown women can fix motorcycles and pump their muscles, and men can wear make-up and speak in a high voice, without the man or the woman having to identify as the other sex.

Finally, in terms of origin of the universe and life on Earth my mind is open to three possibilities:

First possibility: Giant explosion billions of years ago that eventually led to the formation of planets and stars, and the development of life on at least our planet, but probably on other planets as well.

Second possibility: As in the first possibility, but beings from outer space at one point visited Earth and shared some of their technological know-how with Earthlings.

Third possibility: The reality we perceive with our senses is a computer simulation created by a highly developed society or beings that exist outside the simulation.

As a non-scientist, I’d have to say that the first possibility is more likely to be correct, but who knows?

This then, in sufficient detail but still broadly outlined, is where I currently find myself on the wide landscape of beliefs and political affiliations.

______________________

A solution to the Taiwan issue

Background

The pro-Taiwan independence argument:

1. According to the UN Charter, all nations have a right to self-determination. The population of Taiwan represents a nation different from that of Mainland China – different history, different values. The fact that Taiwan and China share the same ethnic group doesn’t matter – Canada and the United States, New Zealand and Australia, Germany and Austria are all examples of countries where large parts of the population at one point shared common roots, or still do.

2. The Qing government ceded Taiwan and other islands to the Empire of Japan in 1895. After World War Two Japan renounced their claim to Taiwan but did not specify to whom Taiwan belonged, or who should take over the administration.

3. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never controlled Taiwan.

4. The PRC was not a signatory to the Treaty of Taipei in 1952.

The argument for reunification with China:

1. The People’s Republic of China is the successor state to the Qing government, as well as to the KMT government that had ruled China until 1949 and has inherited control of all areas previously under the control of those states or governments.

2. Yes, the Qing government ceded Taiwan, but the Treaty of Taipei in 1952 nullified all previous treaties signed by Imperial Japan with regards to China, including the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki.

3. Yes, Taiwan has had de facto independence for seven decades, but the PRC has tolerated this for the sake of peace as long as no de jure independence is declared.

4. Yes, the PRC was not a signatory to the Treaty of Taipei in 1952, but the Republic of China has since seized to be the legitimate government of China and is not recognised anymore as the legitimate government of China by the vast majority of countries in the world. See Point #1.

* * *

I have come up with a solution to the Taiwan issue that should make everyone reasonably happy, except maybe the arms manufacturers and the aggressive faction of the Deep State in America.

The solution is as follows:

Taiwan and China agree to forge closer economic and other ties for a ten-year period – things like re-admitting tour groups, exchange students, cooperation in academic and other scientific fields, music and theatre groups from both sides of the Straits of Taiwan holding performances on the other side.

Then, the big thing: After ten years, a referendum is held in Taiwan with two options: reunification with China, or independence.

Taiwanese who dedicate themselves to independence will have ten years to convince the population that independence, and looser ties with China, is the best option for Taiwan.

China will also have ten years to invest in Taiwan and use the proverbial carrot to cultivate the Taiwanese population for the idea of reunification.

This should lead to a flourishing of cooperation in scientific, medical, technological, and cultural fields. Small-business owners and big companies will all make money. New economic opportunities would benefit workers in China and Taiwan.

If things go well for the pro-reunification faction, Taiwanese would not be willing to give up all the advantages they had accrued over the preceding decade. More than 51% of the adult population would vote for Taiwan to become a province of China with certain special benefits, such as its own flag (which will hang together with the flag of the People’s Republic), as well as its own monetary unit.

On the other hand, if things go right for the pro-independence faction, Taiwan can get its de jure independence after almost a hundred years, minus of course certain advantages that had accumulated in the previous ten years.

Problem is convincing China to accept the possibility that the majority of Taiwanese would choose independence. The question can also be asked what guarantee Taiwan would have that China won’t still attempt to incorporate Taiwan by force if the majority of Taiwanese reject reunification. Would America stand on the side-lines for ten years only to suddenly be Taiwan’s friend again?

If after ten years the majority of Taiwanese adults decide it would be more beneficial to re-join the Motherland, the case would be closed for Taiwanese independence. They would then have had their opportunity to state their case, and the people would have decided otherwise.

This also applies to the other side. If China could give Taiwan an idea of the benefits of a closer relationship for ten years, but the majority of Taiwanese still choose to have their independent state – which they would by then have enjoyed in practice for almost a hundred years anyway, then China must simply give up on the idea of reunification. Just ask Germany, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Mexico, France, Spain, Portugal, Indonesia, Serbia, and Britain, who have all had to cede territory at some point in their histories. All survived and thrived afterwards. It’s not the end of the world.

For the process to work, rules would need to be laid down, and guarantees would need to be given. Taiwan and China can negotiate the rules, but who would ensure compliance? Who would ensure that guarantees are honoured?

WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2022

Fact of the matter is that Taiwan has a dual identity – the anachronistic identity of Republic of China, and the de facto but not de jure identity of Republic of Taiwan. Only time will tell if the latter would eventually replace the former, or whether both would be swept away in a wave rolling in from the People’s Republic of China.

TUESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2022

It is not difficult to see that China is the party with the most to lose. As things stand now, Taiwan is independent in practical terms, but there is a possibility that China could regain control of the island. If such a referendum goes against reunification, China loses, as does perhaps one-fifth of Taiwanese who support the idea of reunification.

If the numbers are against Beijing from the start, why would they participate in such an exercise in democracy, and undertake to accept the results?

Would it work if Taiwan is willing to pay a price for formal independence?

In the Taiwan Strait, between the Chinese coast and Taiwan, lie a number of pieces of valuable property. About 10 kilometres east of the Chinese city of Xiamen, and more than 180 kilometres from the island of Taiwan, lies the group of islands known as Jinmen (lower red arrow). The Matsu archipelago (top red arrow) is about 190 kilometres from Taipei, and about 20 kilometres from the Chinese coast. The Penghu Islands (blue arrow) are just 50 kilometres away from Taiwan, and 150 kilometres east of the Chinese mainland. Would the government in Taipei be willing to give up these island groups in order to gain formal independence for Taiwan, and other smaller islands on its west and east coasts? Will Taiwan further pledge not to host any US or NATO bases? (They would, of course, be free to forge defensive alliances with Japan and the Philippines.)

Or – and we’re just playing around with possibilities here – Taipei keeps the islands in the Taiwan Strait, but Beijing takes control of two islands on the east coast of Taiwan, namely Green Island and Orchid Island (top and bottom green arrows, respectively).

Another possibility: Taiwan gives up control over the two islands in the Philippine Sea and the two island groups closest to the Chinese coast but retains control over the Penghu Island group. In this way, China gets precious pieces of land where they have not had land in more than a hundred years, but they lose any possibility of gaining control over Taiwan; and Taiwan loses a degree of security, but gains formal independence, and all the benefits that go with it. Would the Taiwanese public be in favour of such a settlement? Would the government in Beijing find this acceptable?

Whatever the details, the bottom line is that Taiwan would pay for a referendum that is likely to end in formal independence by giving up several strategically valuable pieces of land, and with that a degree of security.

______________________

Play with the cards you were dealt with

WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2022

A man appears in a video interview on social media. He refers to himself as a woman, and appears in clothes, make-up and hairstyle that are traditionally more associated with a grown woman than a grown man. He speaks in a high voice and rejoices in the possibilities that he believes are now open to him to be a mother, among other things.

Here are the facts:

1. This person was not born in the seventeenth century. Some people think it would have been interesting to have lived through the wars in Europe during that century, or better or worse times in other parts of the world. Fact is that the person was born in the twentieth century. The person can have clothes made and dress up as someone from the seventeenth century, and even ride around in a horse-drawn carriage but will not be able to change anything about the fact that he was not born in that century. The same argument can be made about the fact that the person was not born in 1950. Maybe he has daydreams about what it would feel like to be a child of the fifties. He can dress in clothes that would have been appropriate in the fifties, sixties, or seventies, but nothing can change the fact that he was not born in 1950.

2. The person was not born as a black man or woman. Some people wish they were born with the DNA and pigmentation of a black person, but the fact is that the person in this video in question is indeed not black. Even if the person wanted to be black, it is not biologically possible. The person can smear shoe polish over his face, but he will never be more than a white person with black shoe polish covering his face.

3. The person was not born in Japan as the child of ethnically Japanese parents. Again, there are Caucasians and people of other races who wish they were born in Japan, as children of ethnically Japanese parents, but alas … they were not. Like the person in the video. He can move to Japan, learn to speak Japanese fluently, adopt Japanese cultural customs, and even get citizenship of the country. But he cannot change the fact that he was not born the child of ethnically Japanese parents.

4. The person was born with biological characteristics that make him a man, not a woman. Because his post-puberty body does not have the biological ability to produce eggs, and he is not capable of bearing children, he is not a woman. If his body had all the biological elements necessary to produce eggs and give birth to children, but because of illness or other medical reasons he cannot go through the process, or because of age or other reasons he can no longer do it, he would still be a woman. But because his body lacks the necessary biological elements, because he has never possessed the necessary elements, and because he will never possess the necessary elements, he cannot be defined as a woman. As with the century or the decade in which you were born, and your ethnic and cultural origin, the person may wish he had been born a woman. He can dress the way he thinks a woman should dress, wear make-up, and change his hairstyle – and make himself guilty of stereotyping how a woman should appear in public. He can also learn mannerisms that are closer to stereotypes of how a woman should talk, or toss her hair, or laugh, or make hand gestures. He can even get hormone treatment that will make his body grow breasts – like a woman. He can go even further and have his penis removed and what is left moulded into something that might look like female genitalia. But nothing will change the fact that he was born with the biological elements that make him a man.

Ultimately, there is no right way to be a boy or a girl, or a right way to be a man or a woman. Not all boys play sports or climb trees. Not all girls play with dolls or walk around in their mothers’ high heels. Likewise, some men like to wear makeup, and they are more comfortable in dresses. Some women prefer short hair and muscular biceps. Some men are sexually attracted to other men, and some women are sexually attracted to other women.

The ways you can express your personality are virtually endless. But if you were not born in the seventeenth century or in 1950, you can say you were, but that won’t change the reality. If you were born in Sudan to ethnic Sudanese parents, nothing you say can change the fact that you were not born in China to ethnic Chinese parents. And if you were born with a penis and one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, nothing can change the fact that you are not a woman as an adult.

Our options of where and how to live are much broader than our ancestors’. You can choose clothing and a hair style that suit your personality. You can choose how you want to talk, how you want to laugh, and what hand gestures you want to use. You can learn to speak several languages fluently and live in any of almost 200 countries in the style most people from that country are used to. You can have surgical procedures done to your body, make changes to how big your ears are or how round your eyes. You can lose weight and get super fit, or you can get as fat as you want. But everything happens within certain limits: When you were born; where you were born but especially where you grew up; who your biological parents are; and alas, the gender you were born with. Play with the proverbial cards dealt to you. Your options are almost endless.

THURSDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2022

Say there’s a guy at work who thinks he’s a pirate. “Peter” dresses up like a Caribbean Sea pirate from the early eighteenth century. He often swings his sword around when he thinks no one is looking, and every now and then he utters sounds like “Argh!” and “Gar!”

The guy is generally pleasant, and he does his job well enough that no one complains. Most people are polite and play along with his delusion.

One week you realise he’s not there. After asking around, you learn that he had one of his legs amputated and replaced with a wooden peg. Like a real pirate.

The piracy trend gets stronger and stronger not only in your country, but in other countries as well. People who identify as pirates even start political pressure groups.

After another year or three, everyone is informed at an urgent meeting that if anyone fails to confirm the self-identification of “Redbeard” (formerly known as “Peter”) as a real pirate, you can just pack your things and leave. Hateful people like you are not welcome in the company.

What to do now? Everyone has always known that “Peter” wished he had been born in the eighteenth century, with circumstances that would have forced him to spend his life as a pirate. But everyone also knows that “Peter” – like all his colleagues – does not live in the eighteenth century, and that “Peter” is not really a pirate. But now you could lose your job if you don’t support his delusion? You get an official warning if you don’t refer to him as “Redbeard”? And are reports true that the police have started to arrest people for saying nasty things on social media about Real Pirates?

My opinion is that “Peter”, as things stand now, can go to hell. Not because he wants to be a pirate. Not because he identifies as a Real Pirate. And not because he had one of his legs replaced with a wooden peg. “Peter” is a grown man. He can do what he wants with his leg. And he can appear in public as he likes. And he can yell “Argh!” and “Gar!” until his throat becomes hoarse. But if I can lose my job if I don’t greet him back with an “Argh!” and a “Gar!”, and if I am socially ostracised and labelled as hateful because I think he wasn’t really born in the eighteenth century, then there’s something wrong with the whole story.

* * *

Getting back to Dylan Mulvaney, the person in the video with the red dress and the red bow in his hair. Do I want someone to pull the bow out of his hair? Are you crazy? Do I want someone to yell at him to take the dress off because men don’t wear dresses? Again, are you out of your mind? Men can wear what they want. Women can wear what they want. Women can flex their muscles and ride motorcycles and swear and smoke and wear their hair short and sleep with other women. Men can wear dresses and make-up and tread delicately in high heels and laugh in high-pitched voices and sleep with other men. None of that is my business.

When does it become my business? When one is compelled in your speech to deny biological reality.

Why is this even a possibility? Because an obscure academic idea about gender identity almost overnight became the dominant ideology in some Western countries.

Would I also have a problem with people losing their jobs or being banned from social media or having to close their businesses because they don’t want to submit to the idea that Jesus Christ is their “Personal Lord and Saviour”? Yes, I would have a problem with that too. The same with people being forced to publicly submit to the idea that “Allah is the Only God, and Muhammad is his Prophet.”

There is reality, and there is belief. In a free, liberal world, we are free to believe as we wish and appear to ourselves and others as we see fit, as long as we do no harm to anyone. And we should be free to point out biological reality without fear of being chased down the street by an angry mob, or worse, by the police. Even if our refusal to support someone else’s perception of themselves hurts their feelings.

FRIDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2022

In the debate about gender ideology, there seems to be broadly two camps.

Camp One says there is no right way to be a boy or a girl. Boys can wear their hair long, arrange flowers, play with dolls and design clothes, speak with a high-pitched voice, and have manners and habits that remind some people more of a woman or a girl, and still be boys. Girls can wear their hair short, climb trees, get into fistfights with boys, allow their legs to get fluffy when they’re older, and like motorcycles and cars, and still be girls.

Camp Two believes there is a right and a wrong way to be a boy and a girl. These right and wrong ways correspond to stereotypes from decades ago. Boys have short hair and muscles. They like sports and swearing and cycling through the mud. Girls are delicate and wear their hair long. They wear dresses and can’t wait to wear makeup like older women. They also prefer to spend their time in the house and play with their dolls. Boys who like things that girls usually like, or girls who have habits and preferences more associated with boys, are manifestations of a tragic phenomenon in nature: children born in the wrong bodies. When the child then realises something is wrong, or when their parents become aware that something had gone horribly wrong in the womb, they must, after short consultations with medical staff and perhaps a psychologist, be placed on puberty blockers and hormone treatment. If applicable, they also have to go for breast removal surgery sooner rather than later and begin the long and expensive and risky process of transforming their existing genitalia into genitalia of their real gender.

If you have young children or you’re planning to start with a family in the near future, or if you are serious about the right of women to have their own spaces, including help centres for abused women or even prisons free of male prisoners who identify as women, or the right of gay men and women to limit their relationships to people of their own biological sex without being called “transphobic”, it might be a good idea to sort out in which camp you feel more comfortable.

Read more about the debate:

2018-07-06 – Saying Goodbye to the Tomboy (“Danya”)

2018-10-19 – We must reject self-identification (Joanna Williams)

2018-10-31 – Silencing Women in the Name of Trans Activism (Julie Bindel)

2019-01-31 – Homophobia and the Modern Trans Movement (Sky Gilbert)

2019-02-01 – The Nature of Sex (Andrew Sullivan)

2019-12-06 – The trans ideology is a threat to womanhood (Meghan Murphy)

2021-02-09 – Inside Planned Parenthood’s Gender Factory (Abigail Shrier)

2022-06-15 – The Billionaire Family Pushing Synthetic Sex Identities (Jennifer Bilek)

2022-07-26 – I Would Have Been a ‘Trans Kid’ (Eva Kurilova)

______________________

The split personality of the government in Taipei

MONDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2022

On 10 October 1911, a series of uprisings started that, over the course of the next few months, led to the fall of the Qing Dynasty and the birth of the Republic of China. After a decade of violence and political tug-of-war, the Chinese Nationalist Party led by Chiang Kai-shek ended up in control of the republican government.

The island of Formosa is about 200 kilometres from the Chinese coast. The island was ruled by Qing China between 1683 and 1895, when it was ceded to Japan. A few weeks after Japan’s surrender in 1945, officials from the Republic of China stepped of a boat in the north of Taiwan with a United Nations mandate to administer the island until a final peace treaty was signed with Japan.

In his authoritative report of the period, Formosa Betrayed, George H. Kerr narrates that the officials of the Chinese republic saw Taiwan (or the island of Formosa) as a warehouse full of luxuries that needed to be plundered as quickly as possible. Factories were dismantled and shipped to Shanghai. Furniture, ornaments, bicycles, money, jewellery, and anything else that looked like it might have value was looted and robbed either by government officials, or by soldiers brought in to terrorise the local population.

By early 1949, it was clear that the republican government, then based in Chengdu in southwestern China, was going to lose the civil war against Mao Zedong’s Communists. Between January and December 1949, most of the republican politicians and institutions, a lot of cultural treasures as well as financial resources under the control of the Republic of China were moved to the island of Formosa.

The six million inhabitants of Taiwan were not consulted about this takeover of their island by the Nationalists. For the next four decades, the population’s complaints about everything from the denial of human rights to the corrupt expropriation of property were brutally silenced.

By the early 1990s, enough of the Civil War era politicians had died out, and supporters of the idea that the government in Taipei would eventually retake power in Mainland China became fewer and fewer. In 1996, the first Taiwan-born person was chosen as president of … the “Republic of China”, because calling it what it really was – the Republic of Taiwan, was a controversy that would send the missiles flying across the Strait of Taiwan.

On 10 October 2022, several hundred thousand people in Taiwan actively celebrated the anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China (millions, of course, enjoyed the holiday without attaching any political value to it). The president of the “Republic of China”, Tsai Ing-wen, also solemnly celebrated the day with a speech. Although she referred to Taiwan as the “Republic of China”, most of the speech was about the island of Taiwan.

In a speech on 4 August 2022 in response to live-fire drills by the Chinese navy and army around Taiwan, she referred to the threat to “our nation’s sovereignty”. The question remains: What nation was she talking about? Taiwan? China? If she was talking about the island of Taiwan with surrounding smaller islands under Taipei’s administration, and the 24 million Taiwanese (and other long-term residents), then why at all celebrate the founding of the Republic of China – which for all practical purposes is a decayed relic of Chinese history? I understand that the government in Beijing threatens to go to war the moment Taipei officially declares independence, but is that reason enough to still solemnly party on October 10th every year?

It is clear that to be able to distinguish between the official independence of Taiwan and de facto independence requires a lesson in political doublespeak. But that the government in Taipei still uses the flag of the losers of the Chinese Civil War, the flag of the looters of Taiwan and the oppressors of freedom and human dignity, and still after seven decades actively celebrates the founding of a state that has long ceased to exist, is sometimes difficult to grasp.

Flag of the Republic of China, 1912-1928, before it was replaced by the government of Chiang Kai-Shek with the flag below
The flag of the Republic of China, 1928-1949, after which it served as the flag of the ROC on Taiwan

* * *

The dream of independence of millions of Taiwanese (not all, but a large proportion of the adult population) is understandable. Even in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Taiwan was only an afterthought for the Qing government in Beijing. Then for fifty years the island was part of Japan, and for the last seventy years, it has been ruled separately from Mainland China. Generations of Taiwanese have been born and have lived their entire adult lives with the daily reality that the island is governed separately from China.

On the other hand, I also understand the argument of Greater China supporters, who consider the majority of the population of Taiwan to be part of the same ethnic family as the majority of the population of Mainland China. Language and cultural roots are also shared. Thousands of families in Taiwan have relatives in China whom they visit regularly.

I also understand that the government of the People’s Republic of China has an argument for reunification. They see themselves as the inheritors of Chinese history, with the responsibility to the ancestors and descendants of the Chinese population to make whole what had been broken by the end of the Qing Era.

Whether the People’s Republic can make a legitimate argument about jurisdiction over Taiwan requires a deep dive into the murky waters of treaties signed after World War II between Japan and America, and between Japan and the Republic of China. It was, for example, not spelled out specifically who Taiwan belonged to after Japan had ceded control over the islands.

Arguments aside, what sometimes irritates is the split personality of the government in Taipei. I appreciate the thorny problem that if independence is officially declared, the government in Beijing will have little choice but to carry out its decades-long threats. The Taipei government nevertheless walks a fine line. Passports are issued these days with “Taiwan” in large Roman letters, and “Republic of China” only in Chinese characters. Statements are made about Taiwan’s independence, but under the name “Republic of China”. Says President Tsai Ying-wen in an interview with the BBC after she was elected in 2020: “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China (Taiwan).”

Taiwan passport

If Taiwan were truly independent, would the president not refer to her country as the Republic of Taiwan? And how much does it matter that Taiwan is officially only recognised as independent by fourteen countries and doesn’t have a seat at the United Nations? Most countries do maintain diplomatic offices in Taipei, but none are official embassies, in deference to the People’s Republic of China that considers Taiwan a province of China.

The fact of the matter is, there are three actors in this play: The group advocating for Taiwanese independence, who make pretty strong arguments; the government in Beijing (and supporters of reunification in Taiwan), which also makes points that cannot be dismissed out of hand; and then there’s the government in Taipei which officially upholds the One China policy, but also makes no claim to being the legitimate government of Greater China, and – at least for the last two or three years – also claims that Taiwan is independent, but under the banner of the Republic of China. Can anyone be blamed for being confused?

* * *

What do I see as a more honest situation than the current shuffle closer to the abyss? I reckon: A cooler relationship with America – an unreliable “friend” at the best of times; a warmer relationship with Beijing – albeit with a government dominated by a political party that was not appointed by the Chinese people and cannot be removed by the Chinese people except with extreme violence; and increasingly less emphasis on the symbols of, and less reference to, the obsolete relic of history, the Republic of China.

Naive and unrealistic? I guess so.

———————-

A few useful links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_Undetermined_Status_of_Taiwan: “In 1950 […] United States President Harry S. Truman said that […] ‘the determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.’ This statement of Truman is generally regarded as the origin of the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan. In 1951, Japan concluded the Treaty of San Francisco with the Allied Powers. It renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan and the Pescadores without explicitly stating the sovereignty status of the two territories.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco: “President Ma expressed that the Treaty of Taipei has voided the Treaty of Shimonoseki”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Taipei: “Article 4: It is recognized that all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between China and Japan have become null and void as a consequence of the war.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement: “The governments of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) oppose Taiwanese independence since they believe that Taiwan and mainland China comprise two portions of a single country’s territory. For the ROC, such a move would be considered a violation of its constitution.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan: Specifically look at the “Arguments for the Republic of China and/or People’s Republic of China sovereignty claims” and “Arguments for Taiwanese self-sovereignty claims and its legal status”

———————-

The birth of the Republic of China is celebrated on October 10th, and 1911 is seen as the first year of the Republican Era. Yet the Republic of China was not actually founded on 10 October 1911. A quick timeline:

1894-1895: War between China and Japan

1899-1901: The Boxer Rebellion

14 November 1908: Emperor Guangxu dies; one day later his aunt, the powerful Empress Dowager and Regent Cixi, dies (the suspicion is strong that she had her nephew poisoned)

2 December 1908: Aisin-Gioro Puyi, the two-year-old son of the Manchu Prince Chun, is crowned as the Xuantong Emperor, the last of the Qing Empire

10 October 1911: The Wuchang Uprising leads to a series of uprisings across China

November 1911: fourteen of fifteen provinces in China reject the Qing government

1 January 1912: The Republic of China is established

12 February 1912: Empress Dowager Longyu signs the abdication decree on behalf of the now six-year-old Puyi. This ended more than 2,000 years of imperial rule in China.

Empress Dowager and Regent Cixi; the Xuantong Emperor, better known as Puyi; Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek

______________________

What I needed in February 2004

TUESDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2022

I’m reviewing the February 2004 pieces, “Advice about staying or coming back”, “Slave to the word” and “About friends, and other personal reasons”. It’s unpleasant to read. I had an intense desire to go “home” (“home” in quotation marks, because why wasn’t Taiwan home?). It can be simplistically argued that I was afraid to take the step after five years in Taiwan where I had created a comfortable life and home for myself. However, I had a strong suspicion that it would have been the wrong move for me. I felt that a conventional life with a 40-hour-a-week job and salary and house in the suburbs was something that wouldn’t work for me, even if I could put all the parts together. I could say I wasn’t special, and if millions of my contemporaries could get the hang of it and find happiness in such a life, surely, I could too. Fact of the matter is that people differ. One man becomes a professional soldier, and his old childhood buddy becomes a high school Science teacher. Why don’t both become professional soldiers? Why not both teachers? People differ.

The man behind his computer early 2004

FRIDAY, 7 OCTOBER 2022

The pieces from early February 2004 are … strange to read now. The situation was that before the end of the first week of February I had to go for a medical examination as a requirement to extend my work permit. I was also desperate to leave Taiwan, and to go back to South Africa (it wasn’t necessary that the first action should lead to the second). I knew that if I did not do the medical test on time, my work permit couldn’t be renewed, and then my residence permit would expire. I would then have no choice but to leave Taiwan. The icing on the cake was that I had never been keen on doing the medical. So, all I had to do in order to get my way – to leave Taiwan, and probably go back to South Africa – was to not do something I didn’t want to do anyway.

On the other hand were the memories of the previous time I was in Northeast Asia, with a job and an income and a place to live, and me deciding that I simply had to make a move – as soon as possible.

If I made the wrong decision, I knew, I might be paying for it for years to come.

From “The last exile” of Monday, 22 December 2003 up to and including the few paragraphs titled “11 February 2004” is a piece of personal history of me basically arguing with myself.

WEDNESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2022

00:57

The possible lifting of my exile in February 2004 was a complete fuck-up. On the one hand, I put pressure on myself: “If you want to feel like you belong somewhere, you must leave behind the life you built up in Taiwan and go back to South Africa. That way you can enjoy barbecue and pudding with your parents and your sisters as often as you want.” And from the other side an admonition: “You’ve already written so many pieces about going home. If you don’t act now, no one will believe you ever again if you say something.”

With a personality like mine, plus the right psychological pressure points, you don’t need many enemies.

12:36

I wrote in the piece, “And the answer is …”: “The product [that I tried to sell to myself] is one that I need. It’s the pill I need to swallow to continue with my life.”

The implication, if you read the piece, is that the product was to pack up my life in Taiwan and go back to South Africa – to be closer to my family and to feel I am in a place where I should be.

Looking back after almost two decades, I want to venture a better interpretation: What I really needed was a conviction that I belonged where I found myself at that moment of my life – be it Taiwan, South Africa, or anywhere else in the world. I needed to be convinced that wherever I was, was right for me – or in stronger terms, that I was in a place where I was supposed to be. In February 2004, I believed that that place was not Kaohsiung in the south of Taiwan, but rather in the province in South Africa where my parents and younger sister were living at the time.

What I needed was to develop a sense that Taiwan was indeed right for me. But more than that – that one can belong in a place far from where you were born and grew up, just as you can feel lost in the very place where you first took root.

______________________