Home › Forums › Short Online Seminars › Contemporary China, Spring 2021 › Session #5 - March 2
Just a quick follow-up. Taiwan ISN'T an SAR. It's official name is Republic of China. We will probably have a one day workshop devoted to Taiwan later in the year. Taiwan functions as an independent nation. By law, the US treats people from Taiwan as it does citizens of other countries. Taiwanese can visit the US without a visa. China's government is unhappy with all of this and wants Taiwan to accept some sort of political accord which would make Taiwan part of the People's Republic of China. Few countries (15) formally recognize the Republic of China as a country, but most countries have ties with Taiwan. It is a tech and trading power.
The key US law on Taiwan is the Taiwan Relations Act: https://china.usc.edu/taiwan-relations-act-1979
You may also find this presentation by Shirley Kan on TRA to be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAVIXGAXndc
I've already recommended Shelley Rigger's book and this talk, but it's useful again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeg0MoR7gLs
Finally, we had this discussion a year ago on the 2020 Taiwan elections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6c0ogUMHOo
I want first to respond that the videos froze for me too, although I played with one of them, and if you skip certain parts, you can watch most of it, but it takes a lot of effort!
I, like Jonathan, agree with your main point, and I think the typical American is closer to the French mentality in having a hard time with coming to grips of declining global status. Partially due to geography, but also definite cultural & historical factors, the sense of the unique "American" place in the world is a useful tool of politicians and others to preach/ market their particular agendas, whether to sell products, or to rage against immigration or ideas. Sadly, the lack of real historical depth of knowledge of this country (and the world at large) in the general populace puts us (in the USA) at a disadvantage in my opinion, especially vis-a-vis China.
Ray, I agree. In my undergraduate classes (taken in the 90s), I was taught by many Cold War historians that normalization occurred under Richard Nixon. One of Kissinger's crowning acheivements (according to Walter Isaacson's biography) was opening a US-Chinese relationship in order to engage in "triangular diplomacy" in order to undermine the Soviets. And, at the state-dinner, Nixon brought the California sparkling wine, Schramsberg, to the table. I suppose this might be categorized under the term "raprochement" rather than "normalization." I'm not sure what "normalization" actually means and if it's an official designation. I recall annual debates since the 90's when China's status as a "most favored nation" trading partner would come under criticism in Congress. But, I also agree that it is strange how the historical narrative of Nixon opening China has changed here to Carter normalizing China which could both be true. It seems like the death of Mao in '76 likely played a large part in China's shift from revolutionary government to one that engaged and participated in global affairs. And, as that coincided with the Carter Administration, perhaps the absence of Mao rather than the actions of a US President played the more decisive role in changing the relationship status.
As I'm preparing to review for the AP exam, I'm looking for contemporary material about globalization that my students can connect to our previous studies. The Brautigam article, "Chinese Geese in Africa" about China's current role in Africa, connects to previous eras of Sino-African engagement. And, specifically in Tanzania and Ethiopia, I've been interested to think about China's connections to East Africa. In considering continuities, China and East Africa were on opposing ends of the Indian Ocean Trade Networks. At the turn of the 15th century, the explorer, Zeng He sailed there via India and the Arabian Peninsula to project China's power and establish diplomatic and economic ties during the early Ming Dynasty. While the Ming closed off their sailing expeditions and international diplomacy outside of its borders, and Africa and Asia later fell to European imperialism, Chinese laborers did continue to migrate internationally, although not in the service of the Chinese state. To see the 20th century Chinese government be active in Maoist revolutions in Africa, and now establish various "Chinese geese" which Brautigam defines as Chinese corporate and state entities with various motivations including those searching for raw materials, those seeking to establish a foothold in the global supply chain, those looking to take advantage of African markets, as well as other more small scale ventures, the Chinese economic and political footprint in Africa are more established than they have ever been. Likewise, articles and video here on Chinese food and agriculture imports from Africa underscores the evolving policy and focus of China from providing its own agricultural self sufficiency in the mid 20th century to becoming reliant and exerting pressure on foreign nations to supplement and complement their own agricultural production and feed a wealthier population with more cosmopolitan tastes. Now, as African states become a necessary trading partner for China, it's interesting to compare this relationship with the interdependent commercial nature of the Indian Ocean Trade Networks from over half a millenium ago. And, it is interesting to evaluate whether China's expansion into the African market reflects continuities of European imperialism but now with a Chinese flavor.
Mossy, I agree that China’s Marxist ideology contradicts its economic openness with the rest of the world. Although I have learned in this seminar that much of the Chinese economy remains centrally planned and within state control, there is also significant entrepreneurship and free trade that has powered China’s economic growth in the past 40 years. How China will reconcile its newfound economic prosperity with its political ideology is an interesting question indeed. I think that it would be a great exercise with students to have them compare and contrast Communist principles with China’s current economic realities to help them draw conclusions about the interconnectedness of China to the rest of the world and how that has brought about massive change for the nation.