It's a highly volatile mixture of ingredients: a fast-rising superpower, a rebellious island, an arms race, duelling missiles, claims of independence, and a spate of high-profile political events that could trigger a reckless reaction.
You've seen all this before -- breathless prose, dripping with It's gonna blow! The writer weaves his construction largely out of familiar media claims, and omits several key facts, as we'll see. Note the opening frame -- Taiwan is "rebellious." No pretense of balance on China's desire to annex the island is made. Taiwan is not, of course, "a rebellious island." The whole issue is exactly what relationship Taiwan has to China, and to use "rebellious" is to take a side in the debate. Sad.
China and Taiwan have been preparing for war for years, building up their arsenals of missiles, fighter jets, naval ships and other weapons. China has close to 1,000 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwanese targets and the number is constantly rising. Taiwan has its own missiles ready to hit China, including its recently developed Brave Wind cruise missile, capable of striking Shanghai and other Chinese targets.
For the sake of enhancing the fear-value, the author makes it seem as if there is some equivalence between a nation attempting to annex another nation, and that nation fighting for its survival. The author also writes as if the 1000 missiles pointed at Taiwan are somehow balanced by handful of missiles Taiwan points at China. The fact is that Taiwan is preparing to defend itself -- it does not threaten China. The war threat is entirely from the Beijing side, and the writer should have made that clear.
The rhetoric on both sides has been ferocious. China's military often threatens to use force to prevent Taiwanese independence. Beijing has passed legislation to authorize violence against Taiwan if necessary. Taiwan's pro-independence President, Chen Shui-bian, has infuriated Beijing with his frequent talk of sovereignty.
As I've noted many times, "being infuriated" is a policy response, not a visceral reaction. Beijing uses them against pro-democracy actors in Taiwan, such as Chen Shui-bian and Lee Teng-hui, to gain leverage over international media presentations, as it has successfully done here.
Tensions have been high for years, but 2008 could be the most dangerous year of all. It is filled with potential trigger points, including two Taiwanese elections, a controversial referendum, the final days of Mr. Chen's presidency and the Summer Olympics.
Now after that slanted opening with its juicy OMIGAWD background, we come to the meat of the presentation. The writer says that tensions have been high for years, which is no doubt why a million Taiwanese have moved to China, completely unmolested by the Beijing government. Since tensions have been high for years, perhaps the writer might have discussed their location and development in the previous administration of Lee Teng-hui, and thus illustrated the context and continuity of Taiwan-China relations. Fact is, the same articles, with the same claims, were published throughout the Lee Teng-hui era, whenever Lee "provoked" China.
The piece discusses the "explosive" situation with the elections, and then observes:
Beijing is enraged by the referendum because it implies another step toward Taiwan's formal independence. China has recruited Washington to urge Taipei to cancel the referendum, yet Mr. Chen has vowed to push ahead with it, partly because it would help to galvanize his supporters and draw them to the ballot box.
It goes without saying: Beijing is enraged because it chooses to be enraged. Yes, the referendum's purpose is solely to drive election outcome: everyone knows it cannot possibly succeed. Since Beijing has a veto in the UN, nothing can ever come of the referendum in real world terms. It is simply a statement by the electorate. Note that this key fact is entirely omitted in the presentation, because if the writer had included it, readers would have wondered what all the tension was about and seen right through the writer's positions.
The anti-referendum rhetoric that Beijing asks for on the part of other nations is an attempt to manipulate the local election outcome. Washington is doing the same thing. Beijing has learned its lesson and is keeping the bombast down, and getting the Bush Administration to run interference for it.
For Beijing, the nightmare scenario is a victory by Mr. Chen's candidate in the presidential election and a victory for Mr. Chen in the referendum. "Beijing's reaction will be the million-dollar question," said Chao Chien-min, an expert on cross-strait relations at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. "The Taiwanese government has been warned over and over of the dangers, yet it chooses not to respond," he said. "They will do anything to win the election. Beijing is worried that the situation will get out of hand."
Here the writer cites pro-KMT analyst Chao Chien-min (we've run across him before) who simply regurgitates standard pro-China propaganda claims. Frank Hsieh is not "Mr. Chen's candidate" but the candidate in his own right -- it is purely a bit of Beijing propaganda to regard Chen Shui-bian as the evil genius and nemesis of Beijing. In fact, Chen's preferred candidate is generally acknowledged to be Hsieh's running mate, Su. Note that Chao presents Taiwan as reckless and China as restrained ("worried"). Fact is, Beijing is not "worried" but is simply using the situation to advance the interests of the KMT in Taiwan.
Further, the acutely intelligent Hsieh is widely considered conciliatory and moderate on China issues, and can hardly be described as a "nightmare." It is also curious that the writer reproduces Chao's quote "they will do almost anything!" without putting it in the context of China's military threats. People who threaten to plunge the region into war to annex a neighboring territory are the ones who will "do almost anything."
So you know what's coming next: the familiar Beijing rhetorical prop of Mad Chen©:
Beijing's nemesis, Mr. Chen, must step down when his term expires in 2008. But he will remain in office for two months after the presidential election. And if he is energized by victories by his pro-independence party in the presidential vote and the referendum, he could seize the opportunity to take a bigger leap toward independence, perhaps on the assumption that China will not dare to launch a war in the final months before the Beijing Olympics. (China, meanwhile, has warned that it is willing to take military action against Taiwan in 2008 even if it means sacrificing the Olympics.)
The idea that President Chen will take "a bigger leap" toward independence if the DPP is successful is entirely a bit of Beijing propaganda. A lame duck president, with no control of the legislature, in a population that prefers the short-term status quo, with a military whose officer class is largely pro-China? You'd have to be mad to imagine that. Or have a memory like the movie Memento -- when Chen came to power the military told him, as they did with Lee before him, that they would not defend the country in the event of a declaration of independence. This pattern of the President of Taiwan being depicted as a provocative troublemaker did not start with Chen. Again, it is a shame that all this context is entirely missing.
"I think there is a real danger of miscalculation on both sides," Mr. Chao said. "Both sides don't really understand the true feelings of the other. There's a huge gap of misunderstanding. The people of Taiwan don't really sense the danger of the referendum because we're so accustomed to the name Taiwan. And China, for its part, doesn't realize that the referendum is only domestic politics with little to do with sovereignty."
Except for the last nine words, this is misleading. China has an excellent grip on local domestic politics here -- note that China is using proxies and foregoing the urge to launch missiles and make threats -- and is assiduously interfering in them through pressure on the referendum, as is the US, which favors the KMT because of the Bush Administration's obsessive focus on the Middle East, and in various other ways. All of this information is publicly available -- I've discussed it incessantly on my blog -- and it is a shame that Chao's words are reproduced here without this context.
The writer then supplies a sturdy little fantasy about how a war could result.
Susan Shirk, a former official in the U.S. State Department, has recorded in detail how a small incident in Taiwan could quickly escalate into a global crisis. In a book published this year, Ms. Shirk outlines one of the most likely scenarios that could lead to disaster.
The crisis would begin with an accidental collision between a Taiwanese jet and a Chinese jet in the Taiwan Strait. The news is quickly flashed around the Chinese Internet, and the pressure of public opinion compels China's leaders to respond aggressively. China's army is mobilized and Chinese students march in the streets, demanding military action against Taiwan.
You probably already guessed that Shirk apparently has no serious Taiwan experience (the thesis is taken from her new book China: Fragile Superpower). Her expertise is China-oriented, a major problem of US observers of this relationship. It is highly unlikely that such a scenario could result in war unless China felt it was ready -- as I've frequently noted, China will make war when it feels the time is right, and not before.
With so much space devoted to the piece, so much more could have been said. Japan, for example, is not even mentioned, yet the emerging security relationship between Japan and Taiwan could be a major deterrant/determinant of war. As Steve Yates pointed out in his presentation, some Japanese observers consider Taiwan to be a testing ground for the kinds of tactics used against Japan later. Sadly, the author chose to forego any complex, nuanced discussion of the issues, to produce a shallow scare piece. Aargh...!
(hat tip to Marc A. in Taipei for the pointer to the article)
++++++++++++++++
The writer of the article, Geoffrey York, has asked me to post his response to a similar email. Here it is. I've snipped my comments to save space:
["rebellious"]
[preparing for war]
[infuriated is policy]
Response: Are you actually saying that China is not angry by some of Taiwan's actions, and that there are no tensions between the two countries? If so, perhaps you have some ability to read the minds of China's leaders?
[2008 is year of tension]
[explosive combination of events]
[nightmare scenario, Chao comments]
Response: I never wrote that Hsieh is a "nightmare" -- again you are twisting my article to fit your own views. I actually wrote that the nightmare scenario for Beijing is a whole series of events happening together: a victory by Hsieh, a victory by Chen on the referendum, and Chen using those two victories to push the envelope further on independence. As for Hsieh, he is certainly the candidate of Chen's party, which is the point of my article. Moreover, you are contradicting yourself by claiming that Chen and Hsieh have totally different views, and then suggesting that Chen's views are similar to "the vast majority" of Taiwanese. Which is it? First you say that Chen's views are those of the majority, and then you portray him as an ally of Su. Finally, you twisted the quote about "they will do almost anything" and deliberately took it out of context. The quote refers to Chen doing "almost anything" to win an election, not to start a war. Then you talk about China doing "almost anything" when China had nothing to do with the quote.
Response: Your comment is a partisan defence of Chen. That's fine, but admit you are partisan. You're also attempting to guarantee his future behaviour, as if you can guarantee that he will never do anything reckless. But many people -- including the United States government -- are not nearly as confident as you. It's entirely fair for my article to report those fears. Finally, my article does not attempt to say that Chen is more of a troublemaker than China. You imagined that my article said that, but there's nothing in my article to justify this view of yours.
[china and taiwan don't understand each other]
Response: Susan Shirk is a serious and well-respected scholar. If you look at her book, it is a careful and serious analysis. If you want to reject her argument, you have to provide some evidence -- you can't simply accuse her of "trying to sell books." Certainly you don't defeat her argument by mentioning other flashpoints in the region -- that's beside the point.
[summary criticisms]
UPDATE: York is the Globe and Mail's Beijing Bureau Chief.
[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Chen Shui-bian] [Ma Ying-jeou] [US Foreign Policy] [Taiwan Independence] [Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)] [Media]
9 comments:
Do you have a citation on the media telling Lee and Chen that they would not defend Taiwan in the event of a declaration of independence?
Offhand, I think there was a spate of articles in the Taipei Times after Chen's victory in 2000. (Just checked, can't find them). But several books mention this -- the ME Sharpe volume on Lee and Democracy, and Kagan's new book, in his chapter on the military and cross strait relations, 1991-2000. There was constant coup talk in the air during the early stages of the Lee presidency....
Here's one that references previous military statements on the issue.
Michael
There's a 2003 BBC story in Chinese that refers to Hau Po-tsun's famous comment early in the Lee era that the army would not fight to protect Taiwanese independence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/chinese/news/newsid_3003000/30035022.stm
And the interview in today's Liberty Times with Chen has Chen saying that the nationalization of the army (i.e. making it the nation's army not the KMT's) was one of his most important achievements and that while social chaos (luan)m in the form of post election demonstrations and the red shirts could be tolerated, unrest in the army cannot be.
Unfortunately, I can't find the ful interview online. Check the print edition. I would guess that the Taipei Times will run it tomorrow.
Mike,
As usual, an excellent analysis of the Globe & Mail story. I read the story, and saw one point often overlooked by many: the issue of 'loss of face' - as this comment indicates in the story:
"The Communist regime in Beijing would feel obliged to respond with military action, since it fears a loss of face and an erosion of its legitimacy if it allows Taiwan to move toward independence without a fight."
In American culture - this 'pride' is present, but mostly falls well behind national interest and priorities. Example: American pride was deeply hurt by the 1979 Iranian detention of 52 embassy personnel - but rather than strike out militarily (which in hindsight might have been the better option!) we Americans chose to negotiate.
Although I only spent 2 years in Taiwan in the early 70's, I was there long enough to see this 'saving face' as a big deal in Taiwan's culture.
What is your opinion on the two candidates vis-a-vie saving face? Are they the same?
John, I can't possibly compare the two on that issue. I've never met either.
Michael
Just read the update. Whoa, for a reporter, this guy is very poor in his use of words.
The last bit, "don't seem tolerant of anyone who doesn't share your personal views", is so weird. In what way do you have the power to be intolerant? What could that possibly mean? Censorship? Throwing a fit and rolling on the ground? You responded to the article point by point. He responded.
"Rebellious". I think I could see "rebelling against world opinion". If that's what he actually said. There's also zero evidence world opinion is against Taiwan independence. Leaders of countries say a few nice words for China and then signing a bunch of agreements to sell nuclear power plants can't be an accurate way to do polling. Even if it were world opinion, I don't see how rebellious is used that way. North Korea, Sudan, Libya aren't described that way (yuck, I don't like talking about Taiwan in the same breath as them).
I think the biggest issue of all here though, is he's a hack. The words are common language used in OTHER people's articles repeatedly and he bothered to defend them as if he crafted the language word by word!
I see a lot of similarities between the Friedman Unit and the repeated warnings of danger, danger, danger, [insert time period] is the year Taiwan and China are about to blow up! Perhaps it's time to name this phenomenon as well.
Right on. I think there is a long-term danger from the military build up but the constant iteration of a threat in the short-term is strictly a bit of pro-KMT propaganda.
Michael
York's claim that neither he nor the Globe & Mail takes a stand on Taiwan sovereignity strikes me as disingenuous.
Surely the writer's (or copywriter's) bias is revealed in the sub-headline:
"Will 2008 be the breaking point for China and ITS (my emphasis) rebellious island?"
York claims that, "It is accurate to call it "rebellious" because it is rebelling against the majority of the world community..."
"Rebellious" is a tremendously biased and heavy-handed word, which reveals York's and the G&M's lack of objectivity, if not outright bias.
"Rebellious" certainly evokes the synonymous threat of terrorist, anarchist or revolutionary. The term is also condescending: Taiwan, that cheeky little monkey of an island. That non-complier!
There is an incendiary leitmotif running through the article. York reads like a publisher's notes for the next best-selling war novel, full of familiar and rousing collocations: a feisty democracy, volatile ingredients, dangerous flashpoints, explosive combinations, escalations of conflicts. A nightmare scenario!
Mayhem is afoot. Involved parties are actually or potentially desparate, reckless, enraged, embroiled, and provoked.
The rhythm of the piece is breathless and exciting. The chant of war reverberates in under 1000 words. The word "war" appears seven times; "danger/dangerous" six times; "conflict" four times; and "crisis" and "trigger" three times.
York mythopoetically, and perhaps unintentionally, unites President Chen with the goddess of destiny, Nemesis, whom Ovid said "abhors boastful words," because she brought all kings and heroes down to destruction in the end, no matter how arrogant they might become (Edward Gifford, "The Evil Eye" 1958).
York then leaves us with actual publishers notes promoting Shirk's (the expert du jour) newest book.
Marshall McLuhan once reminded us that, "All media exist to invest our lives with artificial perceptions and arbitrary values."
Thanks to journalists like York and his ilk, we can be assured that he is read and that he stirs our emotions like a Hollywood blockbuster, and that the old newspaper adage of "dog bites man" still sells papers, even when they're free on the Internet.
That ending should read "man bite dog" of course.
Post a Comment