Studies of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2022. xvii, 292 pp. (Tables, graphs, figures, maps, B&W photos.) US$55.00, cloth. ISBN 9781501762215.
In Diasporic Cold Warriors, Chien-Wen Kung suggests that from 1949 to the early 1970s, the Philippine Chinese (Philippine residents of Chinese ancestry) were “the world’s most exemplary Cold Warriors” (1). Tracing the Philippine Chinese’s anticommunist engagement, Kung advocates adopting a diasporic understanding of Nationalist China (the Republic of China or ROC) and its governing Kuomintang (the Nationalist Party of China or KMT), which exercised “a form of nonterritorial sovereignty over the Philippine Chinese with Manila’s participation and consent” (2), or what Kung, borrowing from the political theorist Stephen D. Krasner, calls “shared sovereignty” (9). Such intra-Asian connections further “shaped Chinese civic society and practices of belonging in the Philippines” (3), with anticommunism becoming “a means for different Chinese actors to perform conformity to Filipino civic nationalist values—as ethnic minorities” (221). The monograph demonstrates the KMT’s significant influence over the ethnic Chinese community in the Philippines over the mid-twentieth century and explains why it failed to replicate this model in other Southeast Asian states.
Diasporic Cold Warriors contains seven chapters that follow a largely chronological manner. Chapters 1 and 2 cover the KMT’s involvement in the Philippines until 1949. The Philippine-Chinese elites supported Chiang Kai-shek in the 1920s and 1930s, hoping that the KMT could help protect their rights amidst a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment. After the liberation of Manila from Japanese control in March 1945, the KMT actively expanded its influence in the Philippines, such as funding Chinese schools and attacking the Chinese left. Crucially, the supreme court’s ruling on citizenship in 1947 embraced the principle of jus sanguinis, meaning the ROC “had legal jurisdiction over and the freedom to mobilize Chinese who had been born in either China or the Philippines and who resided in the latter” (71). Following this ruling, the Philippine state essentially “outsourced the management of a relatively small community of ‘Chinese nationals’ living within its borders to China [the ROC]” (74). Chapter 3 shows how the Philippine Chinese mobilized under the banner of anticommunism. They were not necessarily ideologically committed, however; some anticommunists were more interested in securing economic gains and social status through their activism. Chapter 4 addresses ROC-Philippine relations by scrutinizing an episode on December 27, 1952—the mass arrest of over 300 local Chinese based on dubious testimony and misidentification. The KMT was not involved in this operation and, in fact, worked with Chinese leaders to help the detainees so as not to tarnish its reputation among the ethnic Chinese community. Chapter 5 examines the activities of pro-ROC Philippine Chinese. They came to leadership positions in the Chinese community in the mid- and late-1950s, founding the Philippine Chinese Anti-Communist League and promoting ROC indoctrination in Chinese schools. Chapter 6 analyzes visits by the Philippine Chinese to Taiwan. These trips were carefully guided, with the visitors being accompanied by government or party officials at all times and forbidden from unauthorized socializing with the locals. Chapter 7 explores the case of Quintin and Rizal Yuyitung, respectively, the publisher and editor of a Chinese newspaper. The brothers were arrested in 1970 and deported to Taiwan for their liberal, allegedly pro-Beijing editorial policy. The KMT actively collected evidence to prosecute the Yuyitungs, and President Ferdinand Marcos saw this case of arresting liberal journalists as testing the water before declaring martial law amidst the surge in leftist opposition. The concluding chapter addresses social and geopolitical changes since the 1970s. After declaring martial law, the Philippine state incapacitated Chinese schools and simplified the process of naturalization, effectively eliminating the KMT’s influence on the ethnic Chinese community. Like many countries at the time, it cut off official ties with the ROC, and in 1975 established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While the PRC initially avoided getting involved in local Chinese politics, Kung notes that “the KMT’s historical interventions in postcolonial Southeast Asia are antecedents of the PRC’s involvement in the region of our time,” pointing out the Chinese states’ attempts to (re-)Sinicize the Chinese, then and now (222).
Throughout the discussion, Kung emphasizes several points. First, the ROC had an unusually dominant influence among the ethnic Chinese community in the Philippines. With the acquiescence of the Philippine government, the KMT quite freely intervened in Philippine Chinese affairs, such as funding and propagandizing education or going after suspected Chinese leftists. This was best exemplified by its successful effort to deport the Yuyitungs to Taiwan. Second, while “anticommunism became part of their identity as ethnic minorities,” the Philippine Chinese were hardly ideological warriors (212–213). While some truly believed in Nationalist China, others were practical about their involvement in anticommunist activities, seeing them as opportunities for professional development (e.g., a primary school teacher visiting Taiwan to learn pedagogical skills) or personal gain (e.g., a KMT member blackmailing wealthy Chinese against unfavourable accusations). Third, Kung encourages one to think creatively about global Chinese history. He advocates an approach that he calls “Sinophone history,” inspired by recent scholarship of Sinophone studies to interrogate the historical contexts and political processes that facilitated identity formation through Sinicization and de-Sinicization.
Diasporic Cold Warriors, while informative and written in an accessible manner, does leave this reader wishing for more. Kung perhaps could have elaborated on how the Philippine Chinese reflected on this period to address the KMT’s legacy in the community. How did the KMT feature in the memory of those who grew up during this period and were directly affected by the KMT’s domineering influence in these years? Similarly, this reader is curious about how the KMT and the Philippine-Chinese community reacted when the ROC and the Philippines engaged in a territorial dispute over the Pag-Asa/Thitu Island in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, which was occupied by ROC military until the Philippines took it in mid-1971. But such minor issues aside, Diasporic Cold Warriors shows how the Philippine-Chinese community experienced the Cold War and how the KMT was afforded an exceptional opportunity to operate rather openly in another sovereign country. It is a welcome addition to current scholarship on China and Southeast Asia, the Cold War in Asia, and diaspora studies.
Justin Wu
California State University, Sacramento