EDITORIAL: Distortions with strategic intent

The editorial on Sunday last week (“Whose history is it, anyway?” page 8) discussed the political implications of control over the interpretation of post-World War II history in Taiwan. The question could equally be asked of an aspect of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) strategy of narrative control, hidden in plain sight during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) visit to Washington.

It was hidden largely because commentators were looking in the other direction while Xi surreptitiously slipped in references to the CCP’s version of WWII history during his speech at a state banquet in Washington on Thursday.

The big-ticket issues during the talks between Xi and US President Donald Trump were reportedly the US-China trade war, stabilization of US-China relations, artificial intelligence regulation and Taiwan.

The consensus from local and international media was that Xi was feted with pomp and ceremony, but that the meeting resulted in little of substance, something that could certainly be regarded as cause for relief in Taipei.

On Friday, the day after the Trump-Xi meeting, US Ambassador to China David Perdue said that US policy toward Taiwan had not changed.

There is less consensus on who might have benefited from the pomp.

With his businessman instincts, Trump does not use the same diplomatic language as previous US presidents, nor does he use the conventional signaling of international diplomacy or the nuanced version of it that Chinese officials would be used to.

Even though Trump’s disruptive and idiosyncratic approach theoretically makes it easier for later US presidents to walk back the messaging, that does not mean China did not get what it wanted from the perception created by the visit; neither does it make its perception of a shift in dynamics less dangerous for Taiwan.

What Trump and Xi spoke about in their closed-door meeting has not been announced, although it can be assumed that there were no big concessions offered by Trump on the Taiwan issue. A readout by Chinese state news agency Xinhua said that Xi had raised the issue, but if there had there been any major concessions, the Chinese side would have trumpeted them as a major event.

What is more worrying is more subtle, and yet was in full view during Xi’s address at the state banquet. He said: “Over 80 years ago, the Chinese and American people stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight against Japanese militarist aggressors... During the war of resistance against Japanese aggression, Chinese soldiers and civilians rescued hundreds of American pilots at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Chinese lives.”

In a short speech at a state banquet supposed to reduce tensions and herald peace, the obsession about the aggression of a specific, named nation, generally regarded in the international community as being a responsible stakeholder committed to peaceful development for the past eight decades, was out of place.

Yet it was there for a specific purpose, to further the CCP’s narrative of what it is trying to portray as Japan’s “neo-militarism” at a time when it is clearly the CCP that is developing its military capabilities.

Xi did it to legitimize the CCP’s domination of the region. It is directly relevant not just to Japan’s security, but to Taiwan’s.

It was to push back against this kind of narrative framing that Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi had met with Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday.

Neither was it historical pedanticism that the Mainland Affairs Council on Friday rejected Xi’s remarks about the US and China “fighting side-by-side” during the war, clarifying that it was the Republic of China, not the People’s Republic of China, that had been the US’ wartime ally in China.

The facts are important. Never more so when they are used as a preface for historical distortions developed with strategic intent.

Xi employed another rhetorical sleight of hand when he likened Trump’s “make America great again” movement to his own project of the “rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” To Xi, the “rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” absolutely implies the annexation of Taiwan, irrespective of whether that is something Taiwanese would choose. Not pushing back against that rhetoric could be perceived as implicit endorsement.

Takaichi made her intentions for meeting with Trump prior to his meeting with Xi on Thursday abundantly clear. The CCP’s version is suspect and must not go unchallenged.