Taiwan: The not-so-invisible nation sends mixed messages in its military propaganda
A new documentary repeats Civil War arguments mouthed by independence advocates that paradoxically demonstrate Taiwan's place within China's borders
This is Part 2 of “Two terrible arguments for and against Taiwan’s sovereignty.” The previous post critiqued one of China’s arguments to reclaim Taiwan. This post looks in the other direction.
I recently came across a trailer for a film called Invisible Nation, a film which, judging by the preview, demonstrates a cultural trait the Taiwanese share with the Chinese — a natural flair for stirring propaganda.
The two-minute trailer functions as an amazing piece of political messaging, even without seeing the full film. Having worked at a Taiwanese news outlet tied to the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party, I immediately recognized the techniques the film employs to communicate the ideals of the US war machine (the director/co-producer is American, and was somehow granted generous access to the president over an eight-year period). Amid quick edits of stoic soldiers, fist-pumping crowds, uniformed men brandishing machine guns, and military hardware on parade (all softened by clever cutaways to the former president and her cats), we see talking heads spouting the usual catch phrases of “freedom and democracy,” warning the world that Taiwan is about to become the next Ukraine.
Here I will focus on one of the common refrains heard in the trailer, as this is one particularly deceptive piece of messaging that actually defeats its purpose, and sums up the circular, history-bending thinking of Taiwan’s anti-China politics:
“Taiwan has never been controlled, not for a second, by the People’s Republic of China”
The speaker here has merged two commonly repeated tropes: “Taiwan has never been governed by the Chinese Communist Party” and “The CCP changed the name of the country to the People’s Republic of China, a country Taiwan has never been a part of.”
But this line of argumentation is based on irreconcilable conflict, rooted in a framework that shows Taiwan as part of the greater China area. Why?
Before answering that question, I would first like to state: I put forward these points not to make China’s case, but to show why Taiwan needs to make more coherent arguments for its sovereignty. I will make suggestions, as you will see below.
The rationale that Taiwan has never been governed by the CCP does not work because this was once true of all of China at one point. When Taiwan was handed back to China in 1945 (post WWII, after 50 years of Japanese rule) the Communists had jurisdiction of 20% of the territory and population. In other words, China’s governance (and Taiwan’s by extension) was under dispute, as a war for control of the country had been ongoing since the Nationalists (the KMT) broke their power-sharing agreement with the 1927 purge of Communists in the Shanghai Massacre. The KMT eventually lost every piece of territory except for Taiwan; the CCP came to control 99.4% of China, with the other 0.6% still under contention.
With the logic put forth in the above-stated argument, a person informed by history rather than propaganda would conclude that the CCP capturing Taiwan would simply be a final, legitimate end to the Civil War that was started by the founders of modern Taiwan. The framework for this argument — a battle for complete dominance of China and the right to rename it however it wants — does not rule out a long continuation of the war, with Taiwan coming under the control of one central Chinese government.
There was a time when the government in Taiwan hoped they would be the ones to govern China. To say “We changed our minds because we lost” is not a case for independence. To say that the Republic of China changed its ideology in the 1990s (from authoritarian to democratic) is not an argument either. Just because this is widely seen as a very positive transformation does not change the fact that this good thing happened on disputed land.
As for the name of the country, let’s say Beijing changed the name back to the “Republic of China.” Would the independence advocates, and Taiwan in general, immediately surrender? No, you can’t argue on this technicality. There have been three variations of the name “China”: the KMT called it the “Republic” (114 years old), the CCP the “People’s Republic” (76 years old). Before that, it was just “China” (336 years old by measure of its first international treaty, but much older in historical texts). Are we supposed to believe that these are three separate countries with no historical links? The separatist government in the province of Quebec did not declare unilateral sovereignty on a technicality in 1982 when the “Dominion of Canada” adopted a new constitution and changed its name to “Canada,” nor has Canada’s founding date been adjusted. Germany’s official name is “Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” but no one, not even the Germans, believe that the actions committed by the “Deutsches Reich” in WWII were those of another country and absolved them of responsibility. Nor does the République Française (France) attribute any of French history to other countries simply because its name changed several times over the centuries.
If the roles were reversed, with Russia protecting the Communists in some small corner of China, the Republic of China government would certainly be making moves, with Western support, to reclaim the territory, regardless of whatever new name it went by. The “name change” is just an ideological argument, not one that demonstrates independence.
Here’s what Taiwan president Lai Ching-te and his sovereignist party should be saying:
“Those of us whose ancestors were in Taiwan prior to 1945 view the Republic of China as colonists and occupiers, no different from the Japanese, the Dutch, or the Qing Empire before them. Our history is filled with significant resistance to all three, and we will resist any further attempts at occupation. The Chinese Civil War began 20 years before Taiwan was claimed by the ROC. This was not our war, and it should not have been brought to our land. However, we will not claim independence for the foreseeable future, as we aim to remain at peace with our neighbors and protect prosperous relationships. We will respect the descendants of those who migrated here after 1945, and hope for a future settlement that respects our rights and gives security cooperation to both sides. In the meantime, we ask the world to acknowledge that the Taiwanese people were never consulted each time our land was put on other nations’ maps.”
Even if you don’t agree with the framework — as the Chinese certainly wouldn’t — it is nonetheless one that promotes a Taiwanese identity separate from China’s. The argument also removes ideology from the discussion. It’s not about communism versus “freedom and democracy.” It is about a population’s right to self-determination with whatever form of government they choose. And it redefines what many Taiwanese call the “status quo” in ways that emphasize peace and radically de-emphasize arguments based on the outcome of the Civil War.
Taipei should also stop fighting to retain or win diplomatic recognition as “the Republic of China” from a handful of small, allied countries (such as Guatemala and Palau). What these countries are officially recognizing is China under Taipei’s leadership, not an independent country called Taiwan. This legitimizes the view that China includes Taiwan, and that both sides agree to a unified country with one central government (guess who is more likely to win that fight). Therefore, Taipei having diplomatic recognition from any country is a compromised position that does not support sovereignty.
The message from Taiwan and its independence party should be: “If we can’t have recognition as a country called Taiwan, we don’t want recognition at all.”
But Taiwan prefers pretzel logic. You can see such an example at the end of the trailer for Invisible Nation. It shows a map with China labeled “People’s Republic of China, 1949 - present,” and a separately colored island to the east labeled “Republic of China Taiwan, 1949 - present.” Why not just label it “Taiwan”? The activists would say, “To be accurate and honest, we must use our official name.” But “Republic of China Taiwan” is not the official name, and the Republic of China began in 1911, not 1949. So again, if you’re going to fudge facts to bolster your case, why not just do yourselves a favor and call it “Taiwan”? The filmmakers instead went for a huge faceplant by using a compromised name that is both fictitious and implies it is part of China! (That’s fine if you’re a hardline KMT supporter who wants reunification as the ROC, but this is coming from the independence movement.)
This is the kind of paradoxical reasoning I have encountered my entire time in Taiwan. As much as my Taiwanese friends think I’m a bit too China-friendly, I actually believe I am more pro-independence than anyone I’ve met here. After all, I seem to be the only one who was offended when President Lai, ostensible leader of the independence movement, quite bizarrely reinforced the idea of Taiwan being the “motherland of all China” while his supporters applauded.
In my time working for a Taiwanese pro-independence news outlet from 2021 to 2023, I submitted a few (unpublished) op-eds calling for Taiwan to stop focusing so much on the Republic of China history when signaling its identity abroad (such as loaning Chinese artefacts to foreign countries as a representation of Taiwan’s history, or supporting China-branded entities in Taiwan such as China Airlines). The opinion-page editor rather curtly informed me that I was ignorant and insensitive toward Taiwan’s culture and history, and he stopped speaking with me. Coming from a pro-independence, de facto state mouthpiece, I could only conclude that Taiwan doesn’t deserve sovereignty if it’s going to get so defensive about its Chinese identity.
Which is why a film like Invisible Nation turns my stomach. Watching the trailer, I was reminded of all the “call to arms” messaging that got slapped onto the front page of the Taipei Times in the two years I worked there. Yes, I get it — Taiwan should responsibly prepare for a worst-case scenario in its situation with China, and use all means to dissuade a takeover. But all the military hardware and uniforms I saw in the trailer, sandwiched in between flattering shots of the “dear leader,” just looked like a mirror image of the kind of film I’d expect to find on China’s CCTV. And the more the talking heads mentioned China, the more I thought someone doth protest too much.
How about this: Try making a documentary showing how the Taiwanese fought against the Japanese occupation, then suffered under the Chinese occupation, then overthrew the dictators, built their own nation and representative governance structure from scratch, and is now getting back in touch with its pre-colonial roots. Show all the great things Taiwan has achieved on its own, discuss the value Taiwan offers the world now and in the future, and do it without mentioning the PRC or the CCP, or bombarding the viewer with images of military posturing.
Yes, this would also be a form of propaganda, relying on exaggerations and oversights, but it would positively present the basis of actual sovereignty: culture, domestic innovation, a multiethnic history, and the will for self-determination. You wouldn’t have to say, “This isn’t China.” The viewers will draw that conclusion themselves.
Instead, the trailer for Invisible Nation indicates that the film presents Taiwan not as a potential country but a national inferiority complex. How dare the filmmakers even suggest that Taiwan is “invisible” when it’s a geopolitical crisis zone attracting anxious concern from all over the world.
As I was putting the final edits on this piece, I noticed that a new book coincidentally called Ghost Nation by expat journalist Chris Horton had just been published by the UK’s Pan MacMillan. With its synonymous title and image of a fighter jet on the cover, and an Amazon blurb referencing Ukraine and an “increasingly hostile China,” the book certainly looks like part of a campaign, if one wants to draw that conclusion. As with Invisible Nation’s trailer and promotional coverage, I noticed several forms of the word “democracy” repeated throughout a local review of the book (again, the argument should be for sovereignty, not an ideology, otherwise try lecturing the Saudis and see how that goes). And then there is the eternal refrain about “Taiwan’s diplomatic isolation.” Yet there has never been a country called “Taiwan” to diplomatically isolate, while its current leader, instead of just ignoring the phrase “Republic of China,” continues to reiterate it. The film and book are just the most recent in a long, ongoing list of examples of foreign actors in Taiwan leading the ideological provocations with China while Taiwan sputters incoherently about what it is trying to achieve. The book (according to the review) admits that Taiwan is a Western project by discussing the role of American institutions nurturing a generation of activists. This actually clarifies one of China’s main grievances — Taiwan’s submission to a hostile foreign sphere of influence.
Which is why, for the sake of long-term peace, it’s essential that the independence activists stop using American-pushed propaganda, and develop their own messaging that shows Taiwan as an Asian project with historical ties to many countries in the region, including but not limited to China and Japan.
Obviously these films and books don’t get made without help from the political establishment in Taiwan. So I will tell them — the politicians, their supporters, the activists: Framing the entire existence of your country in opposition to another leaves you with no identity of your own. Saying “We are not China” while calling yourselves “China” in your own propaganda is confusing to the outside world and has helped convince people I know that CCP rule over Taiwan would be legitimate. And focusing on over-the-top martial rhetoric and imagery might appeal to a Top Gun mentality that wants to see the enemy “blowed up real good,” but it is not an intellectual or diplomatic argument for your sovereignty.
There are many other statements made in the trailer that are classic examples of war propaganda, but that would take another article, and perhaps a full viewing of the movie. I will just say that the position stated in the trailer — “This isn’t about war, it’s about preparing for an invasion” — is in itself about war. Previous Taiwanese presidents have already proven that civil, peaceful relations with China are possible, particularly Ma Ying-jeou from 2008 to 2016, who had a friendly meeting with China’s Xi Jinping in 2015. I did not completely agree with Ma on policy or ideology, but at least there was no public talk of either war or reunification from his administration. Given that China would likely only take military action if Taiwan makes an irrevocable move toward independence or falls too far under foreign control, one must wonder about the necessity of Invisible Nation and what sentiments it is trying to stir, especially when one of its talking heads says that Xi Jinping is out to kill “hundreds of thousands” of Taiwanese.
Again, read my proposed position above (“Those of us with ancestors…”) and ask yourself if such a statement could not coincide with a phone call or casual meeting with the Chinese president or other officials to avoid war. Even if China refuses the outreach, why not try? (The current and previous Taiwan presidents — Lai Ching-te and Tsai Ing-wen — have said they were “willing” to talk with China, but they made no efforts to organize a meeting or a phone call. They say Beijing has rebuffed the outreach, but there has been no formal outreach to rebuff.)
In the absence of such efforts, I wonder why I should remain so supportive of Taiwan’s sovereignty if the independence movement itself insists it’s the “motherland of China” and gins up the public for a continuation of the KMT’s civil war. If that’s the case being put forward, I’m not picking a side.
“Invisible Nation” is currently showing in Taiwanese theaters. The trailer itself is a standalone work of propaganda, and I trust that it represents the film accurately. If I do see the film, it will surely prompt a fresh article — although, having worked for a Taiwanese pro-independence news outlet that bent its knee to the American military industrial complex, I know exactly what to expect from films and books of this nature, and I’m not keen to subject myself further.