Emile Sheng: New York Times/IHT Do It AGAIN

Somewhere inside the personnel offices of the international media, there's an advertisement for Taiwan reporters that reads something like this:

WANTED: Reporter, Taiwan affairs. Must know nothing about Taiwan. Must listen uncritically to pro-China sources. Must speak patronizingly of pro-democracy advocates. Must not be able to discern the political slant of interviewees. Must be unable to learn anything about local politics, culture, and history. Must not be able to look past the most recent election. CRITICAL SKILLS: must be able to locate Emile Sheng.

Yes, that's right, the international media has done it again: some clueless reporter has cited Emile Sheng as if he were a neutral source and not a pro-China, anti-Chen poser who was the international media spokesman for the recent pro-Blue campaign to depose Chen Shui-bian led by Shih Ming-te. Last time it was Yardley in the New York Times. This time...

....the latest flatpeter to cite Emile Sheng is Patrick Smith in this article in the International Herald Tribune. This article is so completely one-sided that it sounds like a Greatest Hits piece from a KMT internal publication, but let's begin with this passage:

"Lien Chan's visit changed the climate," said Emile Sheng, a political scientist at Soochow University. "The Nationalists are now much more confident talking about 'economic integration.' It's no longer considered disloyal."

The shift in public sentiment was underscored in mayoral elections in the southern city of Kaohsiung, the island's large port city where pro-independence views are traditionally strong and where Chen's Democratic Progressive Party draws its core support.

The election was seen as a bellwether of voter sentiment and is likely to strengthen the determination of those advocating an accommodation with Beijing.

The governing party candidate won by the smallest margin in Taiwan's political history: 1,114 votes out of more than 770,000 cast. The vote is now to be recounted after the Kuomintang contested the results, although most expect the governing party's narrow victory to stand.

Kaohsiung voters soundly rejected both the People First Party, which advocates a scheme for reunification with China, and the Taiwan Solidarity Union, which calls for an immediate declaration of Taiwan independence.

This sequence begins with the citation of Emile Sheng. No clue is given to the reader that Sheng is a well-known pro-Blue academic, not an uninvolved political analyst. Sheng's pro-Blue stance is known to international media representatives posted to Taiwan; I have discussed this personally with a couple of them. Further, if you Google "Emile Sheng" that information comes up in many places, including other posts on this blog. I guess in the alternate reality inhabited by foreign correspondents, there's no Google, and everyone uses Baidu.

The next paragraph then klewlessly rambles: "The shift in public sentiment was underscored in mayoral elections in the southern city of..."

What shift in public sentiment? As I noted a few posts below (Election Reflection), in 2002 the Greens, represented only by the DPP, garnered 386K votes. In 2006, the Greens, represented by both the DPP and the TSU, again grabbed 386K votes. There hasn't been any shift in public sentiment. The closeness of the election was due entirely to the TSU poaching votes from the DPP, and to the KMT's much better get-out-the-vote tactics this year. It's not difficult to find this out; there are numerous sites on the internet that give the vote totals for Kaohsiung in 2002. But I guess being an international media correspondent means never having to use Google. Or to research the information one is being fed. Can I get that job? I'm tired of actually struggling to understand what is going on in Taiwan.....

Meanwhile Smith then glurges:

Kaohsiung voters soundly rejected both the People First Party, which advocates a scheme for reunification with China, and the Taiwan Solidarity Union, which calls for an immediate declaration of Taiwan independence.

I know research is difficult and involves many disparate skills, such as reading and keyboarding, but probably if Smith had done just a little searching, he might have discovered what Chen Chu's probable stance on independence is. The DPP advocates a more moderate approach to independence, but the difference between the TSU and the DPP is one of tactics, not goals. Both want an independent Taiwan. The TSU candidate lost in Kaohsiung because he comes from a tiny party with no cash for a big election, no history of administrative success, and little hope for future survival, that competes for the same voter base with a large established party, not because the TSU advocates "immediate" independence. But writing all that would take time and effort. It's much easier to avoid difficult things like net searches.

Here's a simple fact: it is 100% silly to conclude anything about Taiwan's foreign policy proclivities from its local level elections. Especially any single election. Especially elections in Kaohsiung, where vote-buying is rampant. Voters do not accept or reject city council candidates based on their pro- or anti-independence views, but rather on complex issues of local money flows, interpersonal relationships, clever campaign gimmicks (like our village chief, who directs traffic in front of my daughter's school every morning), and corruption.

Meanwhile, let's go look at the rest of Smith's article. Here's another juicy bit:

"We're looking at a 30- to 50-year peace accord," said Joanna Lei, a Kuomintang legislator and a prominent theorist in the party's younger generation.

"This is the direction public opinion is taking — slowly, like a cargo carrier, but absolutely it is changing," Lei said.

The "status quo agreement," as the notion has come to be known, appears likely to emerge as a principal campaign issue as Chen's second and final term draws to a close in 2008.

Taiwan's voters are shying away from the assertive stance on independence that propelled Chen to office six years ago. While a strong sense of a separate identity remains, there is growing impatience with cross-strait tensions and anxiety over the island's future.

Surveys show that about 60 percent of people favor maintaining the status quo in relations with China.

A strong sense of Taiwan's economic accomplishments and identity has long been a feature of local political culture, and until recently this tilt had put the Nationalists at a disadvantage.

A turning point came last year, however, when Lien Chan, the Kuomintang chairman at the time, traveled to China for the first of two visits. Both visits — the second was last April — were seen as a sign that healthier relations with the mainland were possible and that the Nationalists may be able to reduce tensions that had grown since Chen took office.

The "30 year peace accord" is one of Soong's old campaign promises from the election of 2000 that Ma Ying-jeou floated a while back. The international media loves it, but as I have pointed out, Ma has conceded that in fact China has not agreed to any of this "commonwealth" stuff. A while ago I wrote of this in response to an interview with Ma on ABC radio:

Also observe that Ma says two things clearly (1) they have already talked to Beijing about this and (2) the 30 to 50 year treaty is strictly for outside consumption:

When I talked about a peace agreement, they didn't talk about a duration. I put 30 to 50 years to it, simply to make it work, okay.

In other words, whatever Ma says, he has no modus vivendi. Beijing wants to annex Taiwan, and it wants to annex it now. It isn't going to wait for some unspecified period in the future.

The thirty-year treaty is vapor aimed strictly at the foreign media. China hasn't and will not agree to let Taiwan go for another generation, especially with rising identification among locals as "Taiwanese" here.

I can't let this little bit go either -- it shows another commonplace of foreign media discourse on Taiwan:

A turning point came last year, however, when Lien Chan, the Kuomintang chairman at the time, traveled to China for the first of two visits. Both visits — the second was last April — were seen as a sign that healthier relations with the mainland were possible and that the Nationalists may be able to reduce tensions that had grown since Chen took office.

The slant of this is obvious: there's no mention of the fact that China categorically refuses to talk to the DPP -- instead, the DPP is blamed for stoking tensions -- obviously a pro-KMT perspective. Further, the article remarks that the Nationalists may be able to "reduce tensions." Anyone recall when Ma Ying-jeou said in February that China should remove the missiles facing Taiwan? And how quickly the KMT backed away from that position and agreed that yes, it was OK that China points missiles at Taiwan? I suppose you can "reduce tensions" by agreeing that the other side has the right to threaten to murder you....

Smith's article contains numerous cites from pro-Blue "analysts" but only one from the pro-democracy side. I'll leave the reader with this gem:

But the idea of setting aside political and diplomatic issues for a fixed interim is a compelling one for Taiwan's electorate, which overwhelmingly supports stable relations with Beijing even as it craves more international respect and recognition for Taiwan.

Of course the electorate wants peace. Who doesn't? But what Smith doesn't convey to the reader is that the problem isn't Taiwan. It's China. China will agree to a "fixed peace" -- but only on its terms. Smith does not make this clear at all; the article focuses entirely on the actions of the KMT and the DPP, and paints the latter as tension inducing. The slant is manifest.

Please, NYT/IHT. Stop sending us correspondents who don't know anything and either can't or won't learn.

BONUS: Doncha love how that foreign media breathlessly repeats the KMT allegation that Wu is a slut for fashion? Here the AP regurgitates the KMT line perfectly:

Wu has also been pilloried in the Taiwanese media over her jewelry collection, which includes an expensive Breguet watch and jade earrings valued at 6 million New Taiwan dollars.

Opponents and even some former friends have likened her to the Empress Dowager Cixi, the early-20th-century Chinese monarch widely reviled for her luxurious lifestyle and willful political maneuvering.

It's the pro-Blue media, not the Taiwanese media, that's been hacking on Wu, shamelessly forgetting the excesses of Soong Mei-ling, and ignoring such goodies as the massive collection of branded fashions owned by the wife of Lien Chan, the former KMT chairman and now the Grand Old Man of the party. Not to mention failing to point out that Chen Shui-bian was not exactly impoverished as a successful lawyer prior to beginning his political career. Of course Wu loves fashion -- most women do.

I would also like to point out that there is a hidden anti-democratic trope that this tripe unconsciously appeals to -- that of the authoritarian leader whose wife is a slave to fashion, like Marcos, or Peron. Essentially, the reporter has agreed to present the KMT's claim that Chen is a "corrupt dictator," packaged in a very subtle way. It's precisely in this manner that the international media does the anti-democracy dirty work of the KMT.

There are a few lights in the darkness of the international media. Keith Bradsher, as always, does excellent work here on the elections. Reuters has a very balanced and detailed article on the trial of the First Lady. Clearly it is possible to turn out informed, balanced presentations of Taiwan. Apparently, though, only a minority of reporters are both willing and able to do it.

[Taiwan] [China] [Taiwan Independence] [Ma Ying-jeou] [missiles] [Chen Shui-bian] [Kaohsiung] [DPP] [KMT] [PFP] [TSU] [media] [Emile Sheng]