Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Screenshot
A RECENT OP-ED in the Washington Post by Vincent C. Chen–“The hypocrisy of recognizing Palestine but not Taiwan”–criticizes Western countries for moving toward the recognition of Palestine but not Taiwan. The article proves a remarkable exercise in nationalist parochialism. Rather than take the view that Taiwan should see its cause in a similar light to Palestine’s and that the two causes support each other, the suggestion is that Palestine is undeserving of recognition, and Taiwan is more deserving.
Indeed, at no point in the article does the author–a board member of the Taiwan Thinktank and the Foundation for Future Generations–ever refer to the reason why countries have recently begun to contemplate recognition of Palestine. There is no mention at all of the destruction of hospitals, mass starvation of children, and the murder of more journalists in any conflict in modern history.
One notes that Western countries have only belatedly begun to move toward recognition of Palestine as a face-saving measure after close to two years of inaction over the continual genocide in Gaza. It proves utterly bizarre for Taiwan to feel envious of Palestine here.
If Palestine has, unfortunately, received much international attention on this basis, there may be a place for Palestine and Taiwan to lift each other up as both being self-determination struggles. Past historical figures of the Taiwanese independence movement, such as Nylon Cheng and Chen Chu, did so at a time when Third World liberation was internationally in vogue.
This is not at all the case with the author, who makes the argument that Palestine is undeserving of statehood but Taiwan is. He states that the world is “the process of conferring legitimacy on something that, legally speaking, doesn’t yet exist.” Chen makes no mention of the ongoing genocide, only a reference to his view that “those trying to will a Palestinian state into being are doing so to constrain Israel’s ability to intervene.” When referring to existing conditions in Palestine, he states that “as a coherent Palestinian entity can be identified, it remains politically divided, lacks stable governance and has completely undefined borders”, but never mentions any reason as to why this occurs due to Israeli occupation.
The impetus for Chen’s op-ed is clear. Recent comments by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a visit to Taiwan suggested that Taiwan had more standing to be recognized than Palestine, by dint of the criteria of statehood defined in the Montevideo Convention. Johnson stated this after he was asked about the British government currently led by Keir Starmer moving toward recognition of Palestine.
Though such comments by Johnson were made with no regard for the destruction of Gaza, this is not necessarily incorrect. It is true that Taiwan possesses more of the criteria of statehood as defined in the Montevideo Convention than Palestine.
Still, it proves an exercise in moral repugnance to next see the author go on to list Taiwan’s accomplishments in democratic governance, its high GDP, aid to Ukraine, dominance in the semiconductor industry, and its handling of COVID-19 as part of a litany of justifications as to why Taiwan should be recognized instead of Palestine. The author then goes on to cite American and Japanese support for Taiwan as another reason why Taiwan should be recognized, never mind that without the US, Palestine would have been recognized internationally much sooner, and that it is America’s backing of Israel that has led to the loss of so many lives in Palestine to date.
It should be clear that Palestine is not at all a thought for the author, only Taiwan. It is further ironic how the author’s wording contorts to avoid referring to Palestine as a nation-state, terming Palestine to be a mere “divided entity.” It is hard not to be reminded of the plethora of appellations by which international media resorts to avoid referring to Taiwan as a nation-state, as “renegade province,” “self-ruled island”, and others.
In listing these apparent accomplishments of democratic governance in Taiwan, termed a “far more developed democracy,” the suggestion seems to be that Palestine is civilizationally backward relative to Taiwan, all the more to drive home the argument that its recognition is absurd in comparison to Taiwan. Indeed, insofar as the author seems to subscribe to the view that recognition of Palestine is simply a plot to destabilize Israel, this view may not be surprising. Perhaps the author simply views Palestine as an inchoate and indistinguishable Muslim terrorist horde, as Israel has sought to frame the Palestinian people. Or he may view Palestine’s struggle for self-determination as simply a plot to undermine Israel, not unlike how China claims Taiwan or Hong Kong’s struggles for self-determination are simply a US-backed “color revolution” seeking to disintegrate Chinese territorial integrity.
And yet, in evidencing a view of self-determination struggles as simply to undermine a regional hegemon, a zero-sum view of the world, and a possibly Islamophobic perspective that looks at Muslim-majority countries as backward and deserving of subjugation, the author’s viewpoints remind quite of the perspective of the government of Taiwan’s neighbor across the Strait. China is, of course, itself engaged in a project of ethnic cleansing toward Muslim-majority Uyghurs. But it may be China that guides the author’s views here, in that, like many members of the pan-Green camp, he associates Palestine with China based on China’s nominal support for it and so opposes it, while he associates Israel with the US and so supports it. Such views are further ironic when China is one of Israel’s largest trading partners, pointing to how such support for Palestine is performative at best.
The lack of solidarity–even callousness–toward Palestine from the author points to the lack of worth accorded to human rights on its own grounds in this worldview, then, a worldview that is in itself fundamentally campist. Views toward nationalist particularity are as parochial as ever, it seems.