Engaging with ‘messy realities’ in Ukraine and Taiwan

Brian is a Taiwanese American who co-founded and blogs for New Bloom magazine. In the wake of the Sunflower democracy movement, New Bloom seeks to situate local Taiwanese issues in their broader, international context, and to deliberate transnational means of addressing them.    

---

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has led to increased international discussion of Taiwan. Namely, Russia’s attempt to annex Ukraine has prompted comparisons to Taiwan, which has long faced the threat of Chinese invasion. 

Though Taiwan fell to the authoritarian rule of the Kuomintang (KMT) after its defeat by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949 in the Chinese Civil War, it democratised in the 1990s after decades of protest, and has a self-ruled democratic government. During the period of dictatorial rule by Chiang Kai-shek and his son, Chiang Ching-kuo, Taiwan fit the classic pattern of a right-wing authoritarian regime backed by the United States under the auspices of anti-communism. 

Taiwanese have seen themselves in Ukraine’s plight, donating millions to assist Ukrainian refugees and with near-daily rallies held in Taipei at some points since the invasion started. Nevertheless, both contexts raise issues worth pondering for the left in the 21st century – what would self-determination look like? – while seeking to avoid the pitfalls of nationalism. 

Looking back at the long 20th century, it may be that the left underestimate the power of nationalism. This can be seen in anything from the Social Democratic Party in pre-World War I Germany failing to break from nationalism and endorsing war, or the way that the two great socialist projects of the 20th century – the USSR and Peoples Republic of China – ultimately embraced statist nationalism, rather than genuine internationalism that transcended the nation-state, even if the former often posed as the latter. 

This has perhaps contributed to the suspicion of self-determination from much of the contemporary international left, with the view that the pursuit of self-determination could contribute to the growth of nationalism. After all, the left ultimately seeks to abolish borders and nation-states, rather than create new ones. 

Uncritical nostalgia

Otherwise, one sees uncritical nostalgia for the “Actually Existing Socialism” of the USSR or People’s Republic of China, to justify their annexationist claims over Ukraine or Taiwan – never mind that regardless of one’s view of these historical polities, contemporary China and Russia are far from the era of Mao or Lenin.

Instead, both “post-socialist” contexts have seen a lurch towards nationalist authoritarianism, articulated as the attempt to recapture the past glories of bygone socialism after neoliberal shock therapy – though, in actuality, what this consists of is a narrowly conceived nationalism that garbs itself as socialism. 

To this extent, one has also seen western leftists attempt to avert their eyes from events unfolding in Ukraine or threats facing Taiwan. Where Taiwan is concerned, this has included embracing a-historical political claims by China over Taiwan – the last time that the same polity controlled both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan was in 1895, and even then, the Qing dynasty did not control Taiwan and had little interest in administering it. The PRC has never controlled Taiwan, for all of its existence. 

Where Ukraine is concerned, however, this has more often taken the form of claiming that Russia’s actions are primarily a response to NATO expansion in eastern Europe and so the prime mover is the West. The attempt is made to deflect attention away from Russia’s act of aggression, then, back to the West in order to self-flagellate. One sees shades of that with regards to Taiwan, as well as in claims by western leftists that China is merely responding to Taiwan with force because of America’s actions in the Asia Pacific, and the suggestion that it is justified in doing so. 

What can be seen in both contexts is the attempt to avoid engaging with the messy realities of what life is like on the ground for Ukrainians or Taiwanese – or even to speak over the voices of Ukrainian or Taiwanese leftists. One saw similar reactions from many western leftists in response to the 2019 Hong Kong protests. 

Indeed, with all these contexts, one sometimes sees the attempt by western leftists to point to the presence of right-wing nationalists within the self-determination struggles of Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Ukraine, to frame self-determination for these contexts as inherently nationalistic. This occurs even when groups such as, say, the Azov Battalion in Ukraine do not constitute all of those in Ukraine fighting for self-determination, with the willingness to throw the people of Ukraine as a whole under the bus simply because of the presence of right-wing elements within a significantly larger struggle. 

Moral purity politics at their worst

This proves moral purity politics at their worst. Furthermore, lack of sympathy from the global left increases the odds of drawing such self-determination struggles more firmly into the hands of the right. 

So, too, with Taiwan. But as the emergence of contemporary self-determination – whether in Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Ukraine – goes to show, the left must contemplate what it would mean to support self-determination while condemning nationalism. How to pry apart self-determination from nationalism, then, proves a question increasingly significant for the left to ponder going forward. This is a question worth reflecting on for the future, whether in terms of Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Ukraine.