tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post5953677317577494454..comments2023-10-22T18:25:39.688+08:00Comments on The View from Taiwan: Economist stinks on Dalai Lama visitMichael Turtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-42843708024218322282009-09-01T14:11:41.363+08:002009-09-01T14:11:41.363+08:00Anon --
I'm making an analogy in terms of who...Anon --<br /><br />I'm making an analogy in terms of who controlled what, but comparing the way the media treats two very similar situations of a large power trying to annex a smaller nation right next door. If you are a brave post-Soviet republic, the press loves you, if you are a DPP-run democracy, the international media treat you with the back of the hand.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-54584892470344393242009-09-01T13:58:59.638+08:002009-09-01T13:58:59.638+08:00DT, applying post-modernist critique to ideas of e...DT, applying post-modernist critique to ideas of ethnicity and nationalism in Taiwan is highly detrimental to your position. The same anti-structuralist arguments you seem to be fond of would acknowledge the nebulous links between Taiwan and China and then it would obliterate them into oblivion. Taiwan is a complex place; trying to emphasize imagined links with China over other imagined links while citing Derrida is going to be a very futile exercise, but hey, you're welcome to keep trying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-29884546767529872312009-09-01T13:17:44.511+08:002009-09-01T13:17:44.511+08:00Michael,
The situations are not analogous as with...Michael,<br /><br />The situations are not analogous as with the FORMER soviet states, they were formerly under the control of the polity seeking unification. Taiwan was never ruled by China... only parts of the island by the Qing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-3327426707605344142009-09-01T11:25:09.110+08:002009-09-01T11:25:09.110+08:00If you want to see how a balanced article on a top...If you want to see how a balanced article on a topic like this is written, see this identical situation of Russia trying to stamp out an independent Estonia. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/world/europe/02iht-estonia.4.5537016.html" rel="nofollow">This</a> is an NYT article on "tensions" between Estonia and Russia. <br /><br />Observe that the article correctly locates the source of the tension in Russia's desire to annex Estonia again, not in Estonia's desire to be free. In western news reports about the former Soviet colonies in Eastern Europe, western news reports are always sympatico with the EEuropean states. In Taiwan, where the situation in identical save that the local pro-(Russia/China) is in power, the international press is much less sympathetic to the aspirations of the Chinese, even when the reporters are. And of course, they totally suck up Beijing propaganda in a way that western reporters posted to Moscow never do. The contrast is very educational in understanding how the mystique of China is an important aspect of its soft power.<br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-3038295484854399742009-09-01T11:13:22.253+08:002009-09-01T11:13:22.253+08:00,I cannot agree to the fact that propaganda is MER...<b>,I cannot agree to the fact that propaganda is MERE propaganda; it has actual, concrete effects.</b><br /><br />I totally agree; that's essentially what I am documenting here -- the Economist writer's absorption and reproduction of Beijing's propaganda line on Taiwan-China relations. <br /><br />The key is not whether propaganda is effective but whether one can tell the difference between propaganda and reality.<br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-9927332841162645302009-08-31T23:53:57.485+08:002009-08-31T23:53:57.485+08:00Whether the Taiwanese consented to the treaty is n...<b>Whether the Taiwanese consented to the treaty is not relevant. Under international law, when a treaty is ratified by the majority of nations, it is binding on all.</b><br /><br />Yes, much international law has all the legitimacy of Norwegian Blue parrot.Readinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-80603857130791859612009-08-31T22:20:05.226+08:002009-08-31T22:20:05.226+08:00It is much harder to claim that the Taiwanese cons...<b>It is much harder to claim that the Taiwanese consented to government by the ROC government of the 1950s or to government by any of the signers of the San Francisco Treaty.</b><br /><br />Whether the Taiwanese consented to the treaty is not relevant. Under international law, when a treaty is ratified by the majority of nations, it is binding on all. <br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-8673476443643912802009-08-31T20:41:40.107+08:002009-08-31T20:41:40.107+08:00I think consitutions and treaties are moot points ...I think consitutions and treaties are moot points for most Taiwanese. It comes down to a visceral and entirely reasonable preference not to be subsumed by a hostile third-world nation. The people of Taiwan have for some time now enjoyed the freedoms that no Chinese have. Who wants to give that up for some 19th century idea of empire?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-32158976334396782292009-08-31T13:23:26.419+08:002009-08-31T13:23:26.419+08:00@Anon:
Facing your somewhat blunt suggestion of &...@Anon:<br /><br />Facing your somewhat blunt suggestion of "brushing up" on Taiwanese history, I would like to respond that I have indeed gone through the 認識台灣 courses in middle school; perhaps that isn't enough, but you insinuate that there seems to be "a version" of Taiwanese history which I can obtain the "facts" sounds disagreeable to me. To me, no historical narrative is neutral. A book by 游啟亨 will greatly differ from that of John F. Cooper, and that from a Chinese scholar. I admit that I am not thoughroughly informed in TW history, and I occupy specific positions - Which results in my observation that 日治 is not a neutral term, not just "what it should be". <br /><br />日治 can be considered neutral in appearance at best; it is equally ideologically charged as you say, 光復. But can we not say that the changing of terms in 1997 was also an imposition, which us students did not have a chance? Of course, if the kids actually formed their own opinions, it would facilitate diversity of thought and lively debates(throw in a few fights, too). However, given Taiwan's middle school educational structure (this applies to pre 1997 and the present as well), there is very little that encourages children to develop their own ideas: you get beaten down by daily tests - ring ring, bell goes off at 7:30 in the morning, 班長 gives out the tests. You write 日據, bam, 5 points off. Because the CORRECT answer is 日治. And they tell you every test is important, because it all makes up a little chunk of your future. As for "indoctrination", it works either way; education and culture itself - if we borrow Jacques Derrida's exposition on the subject - is colonial in essence. You don't get to choose which culture you're born in, and most of the times, the educational institute as well. <br /><br />The DDP may not have officially called it the "good old days", but an ambivalent, sometimes unambigous affinty has been expressed by many pan-green figures: a recent volume in English on the Japanese colonial period, edited by David Wang and Ping-Hui Liao, with contributions from American, Japanese and Taiwanese scholars may shed some light on this debate.<br /><br />Perhaps you are right on the fact that the KMT, something born AFTER the Japanese brought colonial modernity to Taiwan, is very foreign to the Taiwanese public. Notwithstanding, there is still an aspect of connectivity and closeness that a Chinese regime has, over a Japanese one. Let me expand this line of thought. In your arguments, you have not considered the complex cultural affinity expressed between Han people, and the myriad ties still existing between Taiwan and China (Qing). You assumed a clear cut between the two straits during Japan's fifty years of governance. Check out the later writings of 林朝崧 and 丘逢甲; while in their poetry and essays exists a simultaneous rise of a Taiwanese-centered subjectivity, you can also detect longing, affection and imaginations of the mainland.D.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10410377880154124294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-90630247543443652452009-08-31T12:04:17.310+08:002009-08-31T12:04:17.310+08:00It is clearly a complex question but after nearly ...<b>It is clearly a complex question but after nearly 15 years of democratic government, there is at least a case to be made that the Taiwanese have consented to the current ROC government. It is much harder to claim that the Taiwanese consented to government by the ROC government of the 1950s or to government by any of the signers of the San Francisco Treaty.</b><br /><br />Complex indeed. It is definitely easier to claim that they consented to the RoC than the SFT, but I think the best description is that they have not been consulted and thus haven't consented to either. However, I think Michael's statement is best that it leaves the status of Taiwan as undetermined. The SFT essentially Japan saying "It's not mine!" and leaving it at that.<br /><br />As you well stated, the structure of a constitutional system makes it difficult to change it. I know you [and 90% of the readers of this blog] are aware of all of the following points, but there are extra burdens that have been placed in the way, including the KMT's structural & financial advantage that they constructed prior to the outbreak of democracy, as well as the demographic shift they brought with them.<br /><br />And then, there's the Anti-Secession Law. It's bad enough that government changes [usually] entail a large fight within a country. Having to fight another country as well?...Robert R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12956389352825464115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1420292786783483602009-08-31T06:53:54.874+08:002009-08-31T06:53:54.874+08:00Perhaps my knowledge of history is incomplete, but...<b>Perhaps my knowledge of history is incomplete, but at what point did the inhabitants of Taiwan consent to being governed by the ROC?</b><br /><br />Whether or not they consented to ROC government is debatable. But it is clear that they never consented to the San Francisco Treaty. <br /><br />The argument in favor of saying they consented to ROC government is that there have been multiple free elections for the legislature and the presidency and none of the elected government have renamed the country or set up a constitutional convention. I.e., by doing nothing the elected governments have consented to the status quo as have the people.<br /><br />The argument against that is that the contest between the choices was never a fair one. Given the nature of a the constitutional system, overturning the established order requires far more than a majority vote - and in this case the established order was never established by vote. <br /><br />It is clearly a complex question but after nearly 15 years of democratic government, there is at least a case to be made that the Taiwanese have consented to the current ROC government. It is much harder to claim that the Taiwanese consented to government by the ROC government of the 1950s or to government by any of the signers of the San Francisco Treaty.Readinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-39316255285631589152009-08-31T02:52:27.603+08:002009-08-31T02:52:27.603+08:00@Robert: The ROC is a democratic state, and the Ta...@Robert: The ROC is a democratic state, and the Taiwanese have voted in its elections for its politicians many times. That qualifies as consenting to be governed by it.Rhysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-67586675200643950962009-08-30T22:55:49.107+08:002009-08-30T22:55:49.107+08:00DT, brush up on your Taiwanese history. It was th...DT, brush up on your Taiwanese history. It was the KMT that imposed 日劇 on Taiwan to make Japanese sound like "occupiers" when in fact, the KMT was just as foreign and continued the colonial us-vs-the-natives state of affairs. The natural term in popular use at that time (and still used in Taiwanese) are 日本時代. 日治 is a neutral term and that's what it should be; it's not like the DPP called it "the good old days" or something ridiculous like that (and yes, idiotic terms like that do exist--光復 "glorious return" for example for the handover to KMT control). Schools shouldn't be a place where the KMT and China-lovers get to indoctrinate children. Tell the kids what the Japanese did; tell them what the KMT did. Leave it to the kids to form their own opinions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-42600244971878411202009-08-30T21:03:33.915+08:002009-08-30T21:03:33.915+08:00The signing of the ROC constitution on 1947 had a ...The signing of the ROC constitution on 1947 had a grand total of "0" representatives from Taiwan as Taiwanese were regarded by the Chinese as "slaves" of the Japanese who let the fatherland down by being good colonials. This was viewed as a mark of inferior mental qualities that a only period of political tutelage could hope to remedy by turning Taiwanese into good Chinese citizens. That's how many Taiwanese chose to belong to the ROC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-72332040141200086652009-08-30T18:08:08.913+08:002009-08-30T18:08:08.913+08:00What democratically elected representatives of Tai...<b>What democratically elected representatives of Taiwan signed those treaties? I'm firmly in Jefferson's camp that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".</b><br /><br />Perhaps my knowledge of history is incomplete, but at what point did the inhabitants of Taiwan consent to being governed by the ROC?Robert R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12956389352825464115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-67611998272155681362009-08-30T17:35:59.008+08:002009-08-30T17:35:59.008+08:00M chen: Therefore, the international media should ...<b>M chen: Therefore, the international media should not just report the anger of China over Dalai Lama's visit, but to state how ridiculous China is to protest Dalai's visit to Taiwan. </b><br />The problem is, that international media cite xinhua, as if it were a normal news agency and not a means of propaganda in the first line. On the other hand there's no other news agency they could cite in order to counterweight the "news" from xinhua, since other news agencies generally just deliver -- news.Gerdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-74188285665991680652009-08-30T14:07:59.441+08:002009-08-30T14:07:59.441+08:00For what it's worth at this point, the "w...For what it's worth at this point, the "worstening relations" line comes entirely from the media's perception of the official lack of direct communcation between the Chen administration and Beijing. They ignore anything besides the fruit of the photo-opp hand-shake meetings. <br /><br />The claim of worstening relations is a willful disregard for the fact that politics can happen behind the screen. As this sort of "news" rejects the inconvenient facts, it is very much propraganda in the classic sense. <br /><br />Some associations have adopted such lines out of genuine ignorance. Others, like AFP it seems, have their own motivations. <br /><br />This sort of thing should always be opposed.Tommyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13552370490869601403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-81180848426870018732009-08-30T12:10:10.132+08:002009-08-30T12:10:10.132+08:00Hello jerks with bad memories. The KMT under Lee ...Hello jerks with bad memories. The KMT under Lee Teng-hui had much WORSE relations with China than the DPP did. The DPP improved relations over the then KMT. In fact, things like chartered direct flights were negotiated under the DPP with all the safety mechanisms put into place--it was China that just would not give the final go ahead, not the KMT. Twelve years ago, China was screaming and lobbing missiles near Taiwan; the US sent a carrier task force THROUGH the Taiwan Strait. Nothing even close to that happened in the last 8 years.<br /><br />I agree Ma is more <i>friendly</i> with China than Chen Shui-bian was, but Chen was more friendly than Lee before him. And friendly doesn't mean stable. Without arms and upgrades of the military, the situation in the strait will rapidly destabilize to a point where China says, "why not?" when it knows it can win quickly and decisively. A strong Taiwan is necessary for a peaceful strait. Ma, who has zero expertise in international politics, doesn't understand that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-74252023538018580092009-08-30T08:44:37.871+08:002009-08-30T08:44:37.871+08:00@Don:
Your line of discourse, asking for the ROC ...@Don:<br /><br />Your line of discourse, asking for the ROC to head back to China is blatantly disparaging towards those who still feel affiliated with the KMT or ROC, and is rather similar with the discourse that hurt the feelings of many 2nd gen waishengs. Why aren't comments like yours acknowledge as trolling - albeit with very polished grammar? <br /><br />Mr. Turton, I agree with Mick that the dynamics of a worsening relationship can be created or even affirmed (scarily enough) by one party. Beijing's discourse on worsening, as I mentioned earlier, should not only be viewed as propaganda but a two-handed tactic employed towards Taiwan. What's so fascinating about propaganda is its reification of ideologies: if the officials say so, citizens who don't think twice/or are not involved with Taiwan in one way or another take it as the expression of the status quo. Similarly, when I was in middle school, the 認識台灣 history textbooks changed 日據 to 日治; drastically lowering the colonial undertones of the Japanese colonial period. And kids internalized the term in everyday useage. Of course, these affirmations work on very different scales, but they do share one fact in common: they are both ideas delivered by way of narrative. Any narrative, charged by the intentions of its creator, is innately charged with a position. In turn, your narratives inform and reinforce your own beliefs, and those who tend to agree with you on certain issues. I cannot agree to the fact that propaganda is MERE propaganda; it has actual, concrete effects.D.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10410377880154124294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-6005012280809417892009-08-30T07:02:30.067+08:002009-08-30T07:02:30.067+08:00On the "baseless" accusations, this arti...On the "baseless" accusations, this article also draws some interesting connections:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/08/30/2003452353" rel="nofollow">TT Commentary today</a>Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-2314861938757598662009-08-30T06:59:44.026+08:002009-08-30T06:59:44.026+08:00BTW, Mick, the Economist piece claimed that accusa...BTW, Mick, the Economist piece claimed that accusations that the government hand rejected aid to deal with China were "probably baseless". The Taipei Times today noted that NSC head Su Chi admitted that MOFA consulted with the NSC before sending out the cable rejecting aid. Note also that privately circulating among knowledgeable individuals in Taiwan circles is a document dated Aug 10 from the Taiwan Affairs Office of Beijing offering aid. Perhaps it's a pure forgery....Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-34738426237867687692009-08-30T06:23:20.466+08:002009-08-30T06:23:20.466+08:00Readin, I don't rely on the treaty to determin...Readin, I don't rely on the treaty to determine the future of Taiwan; both of us believe that only the people of Taiwan can do that. But the only legal document that determines the status of Taiwan -- and makes it undetermined -- is the SF Peace Treaty, a perfectly valid international agreement.<br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-44534156722541499962009-08-30T05:16:36.922+08:002009-08-30T05:16:36.922+08:00The status of Taiwan is determined by the San Fran...<b>The status of Taiwan is determined by the San Francisco Peace Treaty and related treaties</b><br /><br />What democratically elected representatives of Taiwan signed those treaties? I'm firmly in Jefferson's camp that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". If these treaties were not signed by a government that the Taiwanese had consented to, then the Taiwanese cannot be bound by them. <br /><br />I find the reliance on the SF treaty problematic for three reasons. The first is moral as I've already described. The other two reasons are tactical. From what I've read about the treaties and such, the legal argument can be approached many ways. What if you rely on these laws and treaties, and some "international law" court of appeals rules that the treaty is no longer in effect, or that it doesn't say what you think it says? Also, if you accept the San Francisco, then you are accepting the right of the signers of that treaty to determine the fate of Taiwan. What if those signers re-convene in the near future and declare that Taiwan is both part of China and part of the PRC?Readinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-64753771370803764812009-08-30T02:14:33.779+08:002009-08-30T02:14:33.779+08:00At the end of the day, Economist is a magazine for...At the end of the day, Economist is a magazine for capitalism. Economist does not agree democracy has a value, but stable situation certainly can reduce investment risk. Of course, human rights have no value, but cheap labor creats value. That's how Economist see things. <br />Your article pinpoints one thing I was not comfortable but didn't know how to express it. Now, I can see it. The international media forgets that China is hurting her people in Tibet and 新疆. The international media forgets that Dalai Lama is a recognized world leader. Therefore, the international media should not just report the anger of China over Dalai Lama's visit, but to state how ridiculous China is to protest Dalai's visit to Taiwan. Why does the international media help a bad guy to threaten others?M chennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-78913446247233813642009-08-29T23:49:18.732+08:002009-08-29T23:49:18.732+08:00Michael, this IS worsening relations. Relationship...<b>Michael, this IS worsening relations. Relationships by definition are between two or more parties.</b><br /><br />There is no rational or objective view of the word "worsening" that can encompass moving from firing missiles to a wide range of exchanges. For no other two countries would it be possible to write like this.<br /><br />Beijing's view is a PROPAGANDA description of the relationship. I should have written "if you accept Beijing's propaganda". My bad for not being clear.<br /><br /><b>An outsider viewing that marriage, would have correctly observed, the relationship was worsening. It is not wrong for outside political observers to note China/Taiwan relations worsened under the 8 years of DPP.</b><br /><br />Again, only if you accept as the measure of "worsening" the propaganda line of Beijing. In reality relations improved dramatically, with trade volumes going up, exchanges widening, direct contacts, you name it. That's reality. But in Beijing's propaganda claim, relations "worsened" because the DPP wouldn't serve its goals of annexing Taiwan. "Worsening relations" is a phrase that Beijing uses to discredit the independence supporters here. The Economist article nowhere hints at these complexities. Instead it leaps right in and hands us Beijing's view on things. They have Xinhua, they don't need the Economist.<br /><br />The key point is that other countries are not conducting "relations" with A looking to annex B. That fact should color every presentation on Taiwan-China "relations". Hence "worsening relations" and "warming relations" are terms that serve Beijing's purposes and need to be carefully nuanced.<br /><br />And are you saying that relations between the DPP and Beijing were worse than between the LTH government and Beijing? Worse than under CCK? Worse than under CKS, when the two sides were shooting each other? That relations were improving at the end of the 1990s?<br /><br /><b>Im not so simplistic to deny you can list a long list of achievements under the DPP administration. Conversely, when you say things like "It blows my mind that in an international publication, you can write about worsening relations during the DPP administration". Do you filter out the anti secession law, Bush going from "doing anything for Taiwan" to having Chen sit on an ice cube in Alastka.</b><br /><br />The <i>article</i> filtered all that out to pin the negatives <i>on the DPP</i>. That "worsening under the DPP" was only one-half the construction, Mick. The other, and more odious part, is that it makes the DPP into the engine of those negatives. If the article had written: "During the DPP administration the Beijing government became increasingly intransigent, threatening, and radical" that would have been a more acceptable way of framing the construction, since it would restore full agency to Beijing and correctly identify the source of tension in the relationship. <i>The only point of view from which the DPP can be a source of tension in the relationship is Beijing's.</i> <br /><br />However, as it was written, it turns China into the passive recipient of DPP actions, which cause worsening. It then reinforces that by including a comment from Beijing to that effect, near the bottom (observe that there is no balancing comment from any supporter of our democracy here). The piece is utterly lacking in nuance or facticity, and totally China-centric. Dollars to donuts the correspondent lives in Beijing.<br /><br />The Bush Administration's switch on Taiwan relations was related to their eagerness to serve Beijing. They found Chen a handy target to pin the blame on. <br /><br /><b>Im curious, does it really "blow your mind" or you kind of get it, but like just to focus on the political spin you like?</b><br /><br />Neither/both. I just recognize that media has its own reality, and serves power rather than truth, and provide balance accordingly. And sometimes I just like to cut loose and rant -- the failure of people from democratic countries to nurture and serve democracy in all its forms never fails to astound me. Especially in the Economist, which I hold in both high esteem and to very high standards.<br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.com