Ian Buruma on Taiwan, the Paradox of Pax Americana, and the Truths Political Lies Reveal

Ian Buruma

Photo: PS archive

Project Syndicate: You have argued that preventing the further spread of China’s authoritarian model is a key reason why the United States must defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression. But if, as you have also observed, “the sun is setting” on the post-World War II era of Pax Americana, how can and should America counter an authoritarian power like China (and Russia) and defend democracy more broadly?

Ian Buruma: Taiwan is important for several reasons. If China gained control over the Taiwan Strait, the security of Japan and South Korea would be severely compromised. This would almost certainly lead to a nuclear-arms race in East Asia. Moreover, Taiwan is also the only democratic Chinese countermodel to the dictatorship in the People’s Republic of China. As long as Taiwan remains free, no one can argue – as PRC propaganda attempts to do – that liberal democracy and Chinese culture are incompatible.

The US can help to defend its liberal-democratic allies, first, by getting its own house in order. The US cannot defend democratic values anywhere else if it embraces the “America First” ethos spearheaded by Donald Trump.

In addition, just as the US is committed by treaty to defend its NATO allies in Europe, it should consider commiting to defend Taiwan, as well as its other East Asian allies. This does, however, have a downside: the unfortunate paradox of Pax Americana is that, over time, US security guarantees make it harder for US allies to muster the wherewithal to be able to defend themselves.

PS: As 2022 began, you urged “all democrats” – not just Democrats – to “take every legal step possible” to hold accountable those behind the January 6, 2021, storming of the US Capitol, and to prevent “another, more serious insurrection” from taking place in 2024. Have efforts to ensure accountability mitigated that risk? What is the likelihood of political violence before or after next year’s presidential election?

IB: I believe that there is still a risk of election violence. To be sure, Trump is in deep legal trouble, and some of the violent perpetrators of the Capitol riot are now in prison. But, since leaving the White House, Trump has dedicated himself to whipping his most fervent supporters into an even greater frenzy, fueled by rage against “the elites.”

For the Love of Trump

In short, Trump is the leader of a vengeful cult. This might not win him the next presidential election. But if it does, the whole world will suffer. And even if he loses, there will probably be consequences – not least political violence. This possibility is especially ominous in a country saturated with deadly weapons.

PS: Last February, you warned that “[w]hile detecting historical parallels across different periods and contexts can offer valuable lessons and a sense of perspective, it might also encourage us to see similarities where they don’t fit, or even exist at all, leading us to the wrong conclusions.” Was this “history trap” a pitfall you needed to avoid in your newest book, The Collaborators: Three Stories of Deception and Survival in World War II, which recounts the stories of three “near-mythic” historical figures?

IB: No, it wasn’t. My book does not draw clear parallels between either Nazi Germany or Japanese imperialism and the world today. But my interest in mythomaniacs who used historical circumstances to destroy the concept of truth was partly inspired by tendencies in our own time. These include both the use of conspiracy theories and outright lies by right-wing demagogues, such as Donald Trump, and the notion held by some “progressive” ideologues that truth is simply a reflection of power dynamics, racial and sexual identities, and cultural representation.

By the Way…

PS: All three of the subjects of The Collaborators – Felix Kersten, Friedrich Weinreb, and Kawashima Yoshiko – have somewhat murky life stories, each reflecting some combination of myth, bluster, propaganda, and reality. In such cases, you write in the prologue, a “lie” can be as “illuminating” as the facts. What does this perspective reveal about how people lived during WWII, and to what extent is it relevant to other contexts?

IB: How people imagine reality is often as interesting as reality itself. And it affects the way we behave, for better or for worse.

Democratic politicians cater to all kinds of fantasies. But when imagined reality becomes truly dangerous is when it is imposed on people who no longer have the right to dissent. In totalitarian systems, it is not possible to tell the truth about anything. In different ways, and under different circumstances, my three collaborators took advantage of this world of political deceit to invent their own life stories according to their own fantasies, which sometimes matched official propaganda.

Xi Jinping's Russian Albatross

This desire to impose imagined realities is very much part of political life today, even in democracies. The tendency is enabled and encouraged by the gradual replacement of credible news media – outlets that strive for truthfulness – by unfiltered online sources.

PS: You have explored the relationships between displacement, “otherness,” intolerance, and extremism. Kersten, Weinreb, and Yoshiko all came from immigrant or “othered” backgrounds, a characteristic you examine, in particular, in Yoshiko’s case. How did her status as an outsider shape her life and legend?

IB: My three characters were all children of collapsed empires – the Qing Dynasty in Yoshiko’s case, the Russian Empire in Kersten’s, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Weinreb’s. Yoshiko was a Manchu, born just before a revolution brought Manchu rule in China to an end. She was then adopted by a Japanese ultra-nationalist who harbored dreams of helping the Manchus restore their rule in China. Manchus who hoped for such a restoration became tools of Japanese imperialists who wished to defeat Western empires and rule Asia. Stuck in between China, Japan, and a dream of Manchu restoration, Yoshiko became a kind of actress in her own psychodrama of confused identities, and in the imagined reality of Japanese imperialist propaganda.

PS: None of the figures you discuss in The Collaborators was “utterly depraved.” Rather, they were “all too human, especially in their frailties,” and “similar frailties can be seen in too many figures strutting around the public sphere today.” What did you hope to learn about modern public figures from writing The Collaborators, and what, if anything, caught you by surprise?

IB: I can’t say that anything in particular took me by surprise. But the more I studied the lives of fantasists in political circumstances where almost everything was an official lie, I realized how dangerous it is when people lose their trust in the notion that truth exists and is worth pursuing. When this trust is undermined, malicious demagogues can say anything they like to mobilize their supporters. It no longer matters that their lies can be exposed; it is their truth, and when the demagogues wielding it come to power, dissenters will be locked up, or worse.

Why Is America Undercutting Japan?

In her analysis of totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt pointed out that the first stage of building a dictatorship is not to refute the opinions of others, but to destroy the very idea of truth. Lies that cater to people’s hopes, as well to as their basest instincts, then fill the vacuum. If my book about three collaborators has a political theme, this would be it.

© Project Syndicate 1995-2023

Возвращайтесь к нам через 4 недели, к публикации готовится материал «Как сеть клиник «Diaverum Казахстан» за восемь лет выросла в шесть раз »