Taiwan is to stage the island's largest ever military exercises in July, a newspaper has reported, amid mounting tensions between Taipei and Beijing.
More than 20,000 soldiers would be mobilized for the wargames to be held in northeast Ilan county, although 50,000 personnel would be involved in the exercises overall, the Apple Daily said.
The report comes amid high tensions between Taipei and Beijing after Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's last week scrapped the advisory council on reunifying with the Chinese mainland.
.........
Tensions spiked last week after Chen, defying pressure from Washington and Beijing, formally abolished the National Unification Coucil and its and guidelines designed to seek eventual reunification with the mainland.
Let's take a look at that first paragraph:
Taiwan is to stage the island's largest ever military exercises in July, a newspaper has reported, amid mounting tensions between Taipei and Beijing.
Has anyone noted any mounting tensions? The only tension I've been noticing lately is between my mounting waistline and the constraints of my current pants sizes. The article seems to slyly imply that Taiwan's decision to hold wargames in July relates to "tensions" at the moment. First, there aren't any tensions, and second, Taiwan holds wargames most every summer (2005, 2004, Han Kuang #19 in Sept of 2003, etc). Those Taiwanese military planners -- so clever that they know tensions will still be mounting in July, so they have decided to schedule wargames then. What a lucky coincidence they have wargames every summer, eh?
This reads like it is intended to overdramatize things. Hardl;y suprising, since AFP's source is the Chinese-owned tabloid rag Apple Daily, not exactly known for a restrained tone and love of truth.
UPDATE: I just notice that the pic on the left of the story actually says that the wargames are held annually:
AFP/File Photo: Taiwanese soldiers using armoured personnel carriers participate in a mock battle during the annual military...
[Taiwan] [China] [media]
5 comments:
Technically Apple Daily is HK owned. They are members of PRC now but not necessarily "Chinese" (that of course depends on what you meant when you use the word "Chinese").
Tsk tsk tsk
So much bias in your blog. How are you any different from the ones you despise?
Technically Apple Daily is HK owned. They are members of PRC now but not necessarily "Chinese" (that of course depends on what you meant when you use the word "Chinese").
Well, unless you are using a definition of "Chinese" hitherto unknown in human communication, Hong Kong is "Chinese."
So much bias in your blog.
No doubt. But you have yet to mount any comprehensive demonstration of that.
How are you any different from the ones you despise?
I'm much better looking than they are, and I am not so pathetic as to gutlessly post anonymous insults on someone else's blog. ;)
Michael
>>>Well, unless you are using a definition of "Chinese" hitherto unknown in human communication, Hong Kong is "Chinese."
"Chinese" can mean many things in many different contexts. Aaccording to certain definitions, Taiwan is part of China too (Republic of China that is). I suppose the Department of Labor is for instance run by a Chinese?
>>>No doubt. But you have yet to mount any comprehensive demonstration of that.
No need. I think you did.
>>>I'm much better looking than they are,
Oh I beg to differ =)
>>>and I am not so pathetic as to gutlessly post anonymous insults on someone else's blog. ;)
I don't have an account with blogger.com and I am not even in Taiwan. But I suppose you think the term "bias" is considered an insult?
Look, all else aside, I think you admitted yourself that these messages are biased (right?). Would it be too much to ask to remove some of the bias that permeate throughout your blog? Is it too much to ask to treat those who disagree with you as human beings, without such anger and resentment?
You are obviously someone who's educated. Would it be too much to ask to be fair to some of these persons and issues you address in your blog? Would it be too much to ask to treat PRC, the pan blue, and the Department of State as human beings as well? Just because they disagree with the pan green government (which remains the minority by the way), you can still comment on them without having reached into a conclusion first right? If you are in favor of TI that's certainly your choice. Mind you, however, that the majority of the Taiwanese people didn't make that choice.
"Chinese" can mean many things in many different contexts. Aaccording to certain definitions, Taiwan is part of China too (Republic of China that is). I suppose the Department of Labor is for instance run by a Chinese?
Oh please. In what context is Jimmy Lai not Chinese? Clarify or withdraw the remark. Posting about Taiwan and Chinese is nice, but not relevant to whether Hong Kong or Apple Daily is Chinese. You're just being evasive.
Look, all else aside, I think you admitted yourself that these messages are biased (right?). Would it be too much to ask to remove some of the bias that permeate throughout your blog? Is it too much to ask to treat those who disagree with you as human beings, without such anger and resentment?
Yes, there is "bias" in my blog. It's "bias" against authoritarianism and for democracy. A "bias" against lies and for truth. A "bias" against violence and for peace. A "bias" in favor of Taiwan. A "bias" in favor of the Greens." These "biases" I plead guilty to. If you do not have them, then I suggest you acquire them, immediately. Because the other side isn't very nice -- it has a tendency to shoot its friends.
I've never pretended to be in some nonexistent middle position between democracy and peace and authoritarianism and murder. There isn't one.
And no, the vermin who point missiles at me and threaten to maim and kill everyone I love so that they can annex Taiwan, and imprison torture and murder their own people, and the zombies in the international media who laud them for being rational and peaceful, will get no free pass. That is not "bias". That is recognition that I will not support evil by pretending that there is some place of "balance" where I can evade my responsiblity to confront it.
You are obviously someone who's educated. Would it be too much to ask to be fair to some of these persons and issues you address in your blog? Would it be too much to ask to treat PRC, the pan blue, and the Department of State as human beings as well? Just because they disagree with the pan green government (which remains the minority by the way), you can still comment on them without having reached into a conclusion first right?
Yes, I am educated! I'm educated enough to know that when people advocate authoritarianism the only proper position relative to it is one of opposition. That is not bias. That is life. At the moment the PRC is a hellish nightmare state, the KMT is coordinating policy with Beijing, and the US Department of State is split on the Taiwan question (and how can anything ethically split on the Taiwan question?). These are all facts. If you can't deal with them, find yourself another field of study. In meantime I will continue to recognize those facts and what they mean for Taiwan.
The fact is that the PRC and the KMT do not "disagree" with the pan-Greens. They seek to destroy the pan-Greens. This is not some disagreement over a bond issue or a pipeline route. To call it a "disagreement" is to misrepresent reality. It is precisely the error of imagining that there is some place of balance from which the ethical implications of the Taiwan question can be discussed. The "bias" that you deplore is inherent in the way you frame the isues. The difference between us is not that you are unbiased and I am. It is that your biases favor the side that history is going to label evil.
If you are in favor of TI that's certainly your choice. Mind you, however, that the majority of the Taiwanese people didn't make that choice.
That's because they can't, anonymous. My "biases" stem from recognizing that simple fact.
Michael
>>>Oh please. In what context is Jimmy Lai not Chinese? Clarify or withdraw the remark. Posting about Taiwan and Chinese is nice, but not relevant to whether Hong Kong or Apple Daily is Chinese. You're just being evasive.
If Jimmy Lai is considered to be Chinese, I’d also like to consider the Taiwanese people to be Chinese as well. Take a look at the Taiwanese passport, ID cards and currency, and I think you'll see why.
>>>Yes, there is "bias" in my blog. It's "bias" against...
The Department of State just released a report on the human rights condition in PRC today. I suggest you take a look at it and come back and say the Department of State doesn’t promote democracy.
The international media constantly blasts PRC on numerous areas. I hope you've watched the news on issues like human rights, military spending, trade deficits, falungong and such.
The pan-blue has more seats in the congress, the counties, towns and villages than the pan-green. They polled higher than the pan-green too. Now that’s democracy at work.
The PRC has at least done one thing: ensuring that no white men can go to mainland China to enslave and colonize their people anymore.
The Taiwanese people can and have been saying what they want for decades. I hope this is not your first day in Taiwan, but election has been held repeatedly in, say, every part of Taiwan. Turn on the news, read the paper. The Taiwanese people can say whatever they want now. Some have even said that Taiwan is free and democratic, right?
The fact of the matter is that the majority of Taiwanese people have heard the same things that you’ve been fed for the last decade. The majority of the Taiwanese people don’t like the CCP. They also do not like the DPP. In fact, comparisons of the two have been made. The CCP likes to think that it is the only legitimate political party there is. The DPP and its follower seem to share that belief for themselves, as well as the view that they are the only ones who know what democracy means.
Look, this is exactly the kind of bias that I was talking about: thinking that you are the only one in the world who likes democracy and peace, while everyone else is “out to get you.” PRC sucks and I know it too. In fact, everyone else does. The Department of State, the pan-blue and even members of the CCP are well aware of this fact, that's why they have not been addressing the issue of forcing a unification, but instead, the issue of preventing TI. There is a finite difference between the two and I am sure that you are aware of it. Annexation to PRC is against the majority choice. So is TI.
And that’s why you want to steer clear from bias in your opinion: the Chinese aren’t exactly green faced monsters who want to eat the Taiwanese alive (the overwhelming majority of the Taiwanese people are Chinese descendants, by the way). You should also pay attention to the efforts made by Department of State, the pan-blue and even members of the CCP in promoting democracy in mainland China.
Since you like democracy so much, I’d assume you have read theories of democratic peace by Bruce Russett, political theories by Samuel Huntington and the End of History by Francis Fukuyama. You should know that what you are advocating is not democracy or peace. It is borderline McCarthyism, especially when you are naive enough to believe that only one political party is capable of democracy. When fear is mixed with anger and hatred, the combination of these things is capable of great foul. We have all learned that from history, I hope.
The Taiwanese people have heard what you wanted to say many, many times before. They are not interested. The DPP is not holier than anyone else. They are exactly the same. They don’t stand for peace and democracy any more than the KMT. Some would even say that the “democratic” in its name has already lost its meaning (“some” meaning several past DPP chairmen). You are not the next Lawrence of Arabia, finding yourself in Taiwan to promote the weak and the feeble to rise against their oppressor. If you are truly interested in the promotion of democracy, I think you’d pay more attention in finding out what the Taiwanese people really want, instead of what you think the Taiwanese people want. That’s the kind of bias you should try to eliminate from your blog.
Post a Comment