Media outlets are reporting the introduction of a resolution backed by 19 US legislators to support Taiwan into the UN (Taipei Times).No date has been fixed for debate on the bill in the US legislature.
"It's unclear when it will come before the committee, we have no mark-ups scheduled for the next month," said Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for House foreign affairs committee chairman Tom Lantos.
Chen's Democratic Progressive Party is pushing for the controversial vote to be held alongside the presidential elections on March 22, 2008.
But on Friday the de facto US envoy to Taiwan, Stephen Young, said a referendum was "not necessary" or "helpful" and called on Taiwan to adopt a "careful and moderate approach" in relations with China.
"I have regular dialogues with President Chen and the other players in Taiwan on the political side," Young, director of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), told reporters.
"I think it is clear to say neither President Chen nor anybody else here in Taiwan should be confused by the effective opposition to the referendum and the reasons."
US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said in August Washington opposed any such referendum because it would be a step to declaring full independence.
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas J. Christensen also recently urged the leadership in Taipei to "anticipate potential Chinese red lines and reactions and avoid unnecessary and unproductive provocations."
Local Taiwan newspapers have reported that Washington has decided to postpone the sale of dozens of F-16 C/D fighters to Taipei in an effort to show its displeasure.
The resolution was introduced by Scott Garret (R) of New Jersey. It's just a resolution, and is essentially meaningless, as the Bush Administration has already shown time and again that it cares not what Congress does. It's always nice to show support, though.
Tom Christensen, the State Department official mentioned in the article above, was recently identified in a private emailing from someone in the know as extremely knowledgeable on US-China relations but a strong supporter of the refusal to sell Taiwan F-16s, and of the US attacks on Taiwan's referendum plan. Christensen apparently believes that Taiwan should not "provoke" China. Since China determines whether it has been provoked, positions like Christensen's simply make US policy hostage to Chinese initiative. Worse still, they invite war since they makes the US look indifferent to Taiwan's fate, and weak and easily manipulated.
MEDIA NOTES: The AFP article offers a good example of how pro-China biases are introduced into news articles through the use of routine formulations that are either slanted ("China considers Taiwan part of its territory" but what does Taiwan think?) or erroneous ("China and Taiwan split in 1949"), as well as with loaded languages and telling omissions. Note the opening frame of the story:
Nineteen US lawmakers, nearly all of them from President George W. Bush's Republican party, have introduced a bill in the House of Representatives backing UN membership for Taiwan, a move that could anger China.
Imagine this opening frame:
Nineteen US lawmakers, nearly all of them from President George W. Bush's Republican party, have introduced a bill in the House of Representatives backing UN membership for Taiwan, a move that shows support for Taiwan's vibrant democracy.
The idea of democracy is never referred to in the article, except indirectly in the mention of elections. Instead, the referendum is framed negatively throughout the entire article, using loaded language:
The Bush administration has tried to discourage Chen's effort, which has has touched a raw nerve with China, which considers it a provocative step towards independence.
Do nations have raw nerves?
Taiwan, under its official name the Republic of China, lost its UN seat to China in 1971. Its efforts to rejoin using its official title have been repeatedly blocked by Beijing, which sees the island as part of its territory.
No mention of Taiwan's position on the issue, of course. This is followed by more negative framing:
During a recent Asia-Pacific summit in Sydney, Chinese President Hu Jintao told Bush that Taiwan's referendum plan had propelled the cross-strait situation into a "possibly dangerous period."
The President of China is cited, but nothing contextualizes this. Chinese military and political threats to Taiwan are not mentioned, and Hu is treated as if he were not a man who had killed to get and maintain his power. There is no reason that the AFP report could not have included this passage in the resolution reported in the Taipei Times....
"Taiwan has dramatically improved its record on human rights and routinely holds fair and free elections in a multiparty system, as evidenced by Taiwan's second [sic] democratic presidential election in 2000 and 2004, in which Mr Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁] was elected as President," the resolution said.
...except that it would have spoiled the effectiveness of all that negative language about the horrible referendum, of course, especially in contrast to the regime run by Hu Jintao.
[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Democracy] [UN] [DPP] [Taiwan Independence] [US Foreign Policy]
15 comments:
Did I read some news reports right that Chen said critics of Taiwan's economy could swim to China?
If so I think that's an extraordinarily petty and small-minded comment that demonstrates why it's good he won't be president after the Spring. For his sake I rather hope he was very badly misquoted.
Interesting, Garrett represents my parent's district, and is another right winger. That was my top story yesterday. I guess he is taking over for Tancredo.
It seems to indicate an ideological struggle in Washington. And as usual, progressives are silent. (We considered during the Shannon meet that perhaps Taiwanese are not poor enough, ethnic enough or suffering enough to merit progressive attention!)
To Raj,
President Chen was speaking in Taiwanese. Here is the translation in essence (my humble attempt). “ Taiwan is a beautiful precious island. (However), some people (in Taiwan) have disdained Taiwan like a piece of junk in every regard. The Pacific Ocean has no cover. For those who think China is good, may just join them*. Right? You do not have to return.”
* This may be translated other ways because Mr. Chen framed the sentence as a question.
Clearly, Mr. Chen aimed his remark toward those people who has relentlessly criticized Taiwan (and his policy) but praised China at the same time. In my opinion, the statement is by no means out of bound (heavy for sure). Besides, the word “swim” was never used in this context. A pure invention by the press.
I think the correct way to "frame" a cross-Strait article is that it is the position of the Chinese government that...[ABCD, renegade province, etc.], whereas the position of the ROC government and the population on Taiwan is heavily divided.
It's clearly exaggerated to suggest that the entire Chinese population is hell-bent on "retaking Taiwan." Most of them are too busy putting food on the table to really care.
Michael - I've been reading your blog for a while, and you've really opened my eyes to the way Taiwan is reported on. There's a stunning example posted today on Thirsty Ghosts - a decent account of the historical background, but talking about the present, all the tension is 100% the fault of the DPP.
Channing - that's a pretty odd thing to say, for two reasons. 1) Do you remember reports of other bids for independence? Think East Timor and Aceh, think Kosovo and Montenegro. In articles on those places, was the journalist's first point the position of the Indonesian/Serbian government, complete with quotes? You can go and check, due to the magic of the internet.
Secondly, Taiwan is divided over many things, but not this. China wants the island immediately to become a part of the PRC under CPC control. According to my reading of the polls, there are about 3 people in Taiwan who want this. There is plenty of debate in Taiwan about *the best way to deal with China's aggression*, but there doesn't seem to be much disagreement over the basic difference between the two countries.
Quick qn (OT, I know)
When is the legislative yuan due to be dissolved? I'm guessing it's a bit earlier than usual due to the election.
OT qn
When's the legislative going to be dissolved? I know it's a bit earlier than usual due to the election, but not the date.
Raj:
Check with A-gu at That's IMpossible, he blogs a lot on the legislative elections.
Michael
Yeah, I sent him and e-mail but didn't get a reply. I might put a comment on his last blog entry to see if that helps.
Places like Kosovo, Aceh and Darfur have been torn by years of war, looting and/or gang rule. Taiwan remains a largely peaceful society and the most political violence we ever see are legislature fights and the very, very occasional blue-green street confrontations.
I think that is one defining reason why the world and its press have yet to care/show interest in the [arguably] partisan ambitions within Taiwan--nobody is getting hurt or even detained, and now that the population enjoys a fair degree of personal freedom, most people care more about earning the next meal or the next home improvement purchases.
It seems to me that Taiwan needs a referendum on democracy first before it concerns itself with the more abstract needs of statehood and UN membership. Clearly, old line KMT supporters have real difficulties with democracy which has only been exercised really in the last decade or so.
"Clearly, old line KMT supporters have real difficulties with democracy which has only been exercised really in the last decade or so."
No, they just have a problem with losing power. It is the same problem the CCP has. Democracy is fine and dandy as long as the ruler never has to be voted out of office, right? Democracy is no longer a bad word in China. It just has to come "at a gradual pace".
Michael, please note the following:
"Nineteen US lawmakers, nearly all of them from President George W. Bush's Republican party"
Okay so where's the um "liberals" and the Dems? Not that I believe all Democrats are "liberal-thinkers" as Mr. um Maddog so eloquently put it last time when he sent me an email with "cheers" at the end, as well as saying I "pigeon-holed" myself simply because I stated that I was a conservative Christian (nevermind I didn't say I supported either party) but it's pretty obvious that the Dems and "liberals" are lacking when it comes to Taiwan.
No wonder Americans of Taiwanese descent will tend to vote Republican rather than Democrat.
The "liberals" support Taiwan and yet don't want to oppose China's stance on Taiwan's membership?
Hahahaha. That's all I have to say.
Good job anyway. Michael I think you should start wondering here at this point. (Not that you haven't already if you did wonder).....
To Marc Athony:
Of course the progressives are silent just as the liberals "disappeared" when the question of supporting Taiwan's membership against China's opposition in the U.N. arose in the recent Zogby Poll.
There's some pretty interesting things going on here...
The conservatives on the other hand, don't really trust or like the U.N. In fact, they want the U.S. out of the U.N. (look up conservative caucus foundation and its stance towards the U.N.)
Part of the reason stems from religion (Christianity) and the other stems from the fact that countries in the U.N. are not really united when it comes to certain moral issues. We see this all the time with China and Russia.
Now take a look at this:
In the recent Zogby poll, even though the conservatives do not like the U.N., they were MORE WILLING than liberals to stand up to China's opposition concerning Taiwan's membership.
How is this so? I made a comment to Michael on another post in which he wrote about the GOP, but people here are really missing something very critical I think.
Bush may not be all that, but at least the Republicans have taken a stand on certain issues, especially moral issues.
Post a Comment