Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Catapulting the Propaganda

The powerful effect of pro-China propagandizing is seen in this translation of a piece from the Asia Times on the US Nimitz deployment to Japan, arguing that it is linked to the Taiwan election in March:
The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz of the US Navy arrived in Japan on 11 February. An analysis maintains that the deployment of the aircraft carrier is a step the United States has taken to make sure that, during Taiwan's presidential election and UN membership referendum on 22 March, there will be at least two aircraft carrier battle groups in West Pacific so that they can effectively deter the eruption of a clash in the Taiwan Strait.
One newspaper maintains that USS Nimitz is to replace the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier that will soon be decommissioned. However, according to The Navy Times, the deployment of USS Nimitz in West Pacific is not permanent, but was done merely to reinforce the United States' military strength in this part of the world; and that USS Washington will be the aircraft carrier that will replace USS Kitty Hawk in the future. Explaining the deployment of USS Nimitz aircraft carrier in Japan, US Navy says USS Nimitz' temporary commission is necessitated by the maintenance that USS Kitty Hawk needs. However, The Navy Times notes that the commission of USS Nimitz in West Pacific is a routine deployment based on the Navy's "Fleet Response Plan" as well as a real and important drill of the plan.

The "Fleet Response Plan" was adopted by the US Navy in 2003. According to this plan, US Navy can simultaneously deploy six aircraft carrier battle groups to any danger zone around the world within 30 days and then reinforce the deployment with two additional aircraft carrier battle groups within three months. This has
significantly enhanced the US Navy's capabilities of dealing with any crisis and at the same time made it difficult for an adversary to find an opportunity to attack US aircraft carriers. As for the US Navy's explanation that USS Kitty Hawk is in need of maintenance, one analysis maintains that it is not quite plausible that USS Kitty Hawk has to be maintained before it will be decommissioned this year. One noteworthy fact is that, after USS Kitty Hawk is decommissioned, the aircraft that will take its place will be USS Washington aircraft carrier, which is also a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier like the USS Nimitz. Thus, USS Nimitz' deployment in Japan also has the function of making preparations for USS Washington's permanent stationing in Japan.

The Navy Times report notes that USS Kitty Hawk will not leave Japan for home after the arrival of USS Nimitz; and that it will not leave Japan for home until the second half of 2008. This means that, during the time of Taiwan's presidential election, the United States will have two aircraft battle groups in waters adjacent to the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan Strait will be at its most dangerous situation in March this year. The situation will be both delicate and complex. Whether the mainland will take a military stance prior to the election on 22 March to influence the election outcome and whether Chen Shuibian will overreact by provoking the mainland to attack in case the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] will be completely defeated during the election may trigger a clash in the Taiwan Strait.

The United States certainly fully understands this situation. It has time and again stressed that it does not want to see the eruption of a clash in the Taiwan Strait. The mission of the upcoming deployment of the USS Nimitz battle group in this part of the world is believed to be one of preventing a clash and not one of supporting Taiwan's DPP government. In other words, it is a mission different from the one in 1996 when the United States dispatched two aircraft carriers to help defend Taiwan when the mainland intimidated Taiwan with two missile exercises during Taiwan first presidential election at that time.

[deleted paragraph on how much more powerful Nimitz is]

Moreover, the aircraft carrier's escorts, Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers, also have powerful fighting power. Modern Aegis-equipped ships are also equipped with "Standard 3" intercepting missiles. The deployment of USS Nimitz, the most powerful nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, in West Pacific shows that the United States is following closely the situation in the Taiwan Strait, and that it wants to assume a powerful stance to prevent an eruption of any clash between the two sides of the strait. Of course, the most important purpose of the deployment is to maintain the United States' leading status and geopolitical interests in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Both KMT politicians and Chinese leadership have repeatedly expressed to foreigners that they are worried that Chen Shui-bian might do something crazy, and incredibly, it is possible to write in a piece of serious analysis that A-bian will start a war if the DPP loses the Presidential election. Mad Chen lives! The importance of repetition here cannot be overestimated -- the more the KMT and China keep repeating it, the more people will stop noticing how stupid it is. That's right -- Beijing and the KMT claim a lame duck Taiwanese president will use a military dominated by a pro-KMT officer corps, overseen by a legislature controlled by the pro-China side, to start a war with China that will have zero public support, and which has no international backing. Right. I hope the US military hasn't bought into this nonsense. Observe, though, how the it nicely sets up a Chinese military action against Taiwan -- one could easily imagine a suborned officer in the Taiwanese military creating a provocation for China's sake.....and then China saying "See? We warned you...." Good to see the US carriers out there....

Simon Tisdall has a piece in the Guardian (found on this blog) that emphasizes China's deployment of soft power in annexing Taiwan. The first paragraph terminates in a reference to that very common media/propaganda trope, Taiwan as the wild child in need of discipline, which will be supplied by the authority of Beijing:
Hardliners in Washington, Beijing and Taipei continue to warn of an explosive military confrontation between China and the US as Taiwan’s short-fuse presidential election draws close. But growing evidence suggests hawks on both sides are purposefully exaggerating the risks. Rather than threatening war, China is increasingly relying on non-military means to bring its “renegade province” to heel.
"bringing something to heel" is an act of discipline. It is a shame that clearer language, like annex, or expand, is not used in the media. Note the term "renegade province" which is purely an invention of the western media and has never been used by Beijing -- good that Tisdall put it in quotes. Tisdall's language assumes that Taiwan is part of China -- Taiwan is being "brought back into the fold." Newsman are so used to deploying such metaphors, I doubt it ever crossed his mind that Taiwan has never been part of the PRC....Tisdall also claims that support for independence has fallen to only 19% (due, of course, to China's soft power) but cites no poll for this, entirely missing how thoroughly mainstream a Taiwan identity is nowadays....

UPDATE: Of course, Tisdall did refer to the "pro-China KMT." Thanks, Simon!

UPDATE II: Tisdall apparently got his information from the Mainland Affairs Council Poll. Apparently he added together the two items for independence, got 19%, and concluded that support for independence is falling. Note that the same process for annexation as an option also produces falling numbers. What is actually happening is support for the status quo is rising. Yet an uncertain but surely large number of people in the column "status quo now, decision later" must support independence.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

The 19% number comes from the MAC poll, published on a regular basis:

http://www.mac.gov.tw/english/english/pos/9612/9612e_1.gif

I don't think he missed the point on how mainstream "Taiwanese identity" is today.

I think you're missing the point that a Taiwanese identity isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with a Chinese identity. You're missing the point that identifying with Taiwan doesn't mean advocating for an independent Taiwan.

Michael Turton said...

That's quite true -- but at the same time, it is absurd to argue that support for de jure independence here is only 19%. Imagine if China renounced its claim to Taiwan and said "OK, up to you." Do you think that only 19% would support ultimate de jure independence?

Tisdall should also note that positions fluctuate over time, and this is not the first time that the 19% figure has been hit -- which I assume he got from adding the two "independence" choices. Even in that poll support is clearly not at 19% -- unless you want to make the absurd claim that everyone in the "status quo now, decision later" column is pro-annexation.

Too, other, better survey work shows support for independence as a final option consistently much higher. The MAC poll omits at least two important questions (1) What if China didn't care and (2) What ultimate outcome would you like to see?

Finally, as Tisdall can see from the MAC polls, support for unification is also falling. If Beijing is really attracting Taiwanese, why is support for annexation falling? What is actually happening is an increased preference for the status quo, which is the result of domestic politics.

Michael

Michael

Anonymous said...

I would hope that taiwanese are pro independence but i'm not living there anymore but i do have family there still so i know it's tense. Its hard to state how you trully feel when big brother starts testing missles on your back door.

Jasmine

Mike Fagan said...

Tisdall's choice of language in referring to Taiwan does not surprise me. He writes for the Guardian, which is essentially a left-wing rag (though it does occassionally provide some glimmers of excellence). They are all socialists at the Guardian and China is a communist-totalitarian state (whatever one might say about its' economy). So of course someone writing for the Guardian is not likely to use language reflecting a Taiwanese perspective.

Anonymous said...

Imagine if China renounced its claim to Taiwan and said "OK, up to you." Do you think that only 19% would support ultimate de jure independence?

I personally am not interested in random hypotheticals, especially when they're unlikely to happen.

Imagine if the United States renounced the Taiwan Relations Act, and said "screw you Taiwan, we're not getting involved under any circumstance". Would support for reunification and independence remain the same?

We live in the world we live in. The only thing that matters is the conclusion that the Taiwanese come to; their thought process is only interesting in the way it effects their conclusion.

Bottom line, the vast majority of Taiwanese are not seeking independence as a goal.

As far as why support for annexation is dropping... I'll show you a related chart from the MAC.

http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/mlpolicy/pos/9612/9612_7.gif

I couldn't find the English version on their site. The title is: "people's perception of the mainland regime's hostility".

- the red bar shows those who believe the mainland government is "hostile towards our government";
- the yellow bar shows "hostile towards our people".

As you can see, most Taiwanese believe the Beijing government is hostile... not just to government, but to the Taiwanese people. What's very significant to me, however, is the change shown in year 94 (2005 to the rest of us). That sample was taken shortly after Lien Chan/James Soong's trip to Beijing.

Clearly, those positive effects have largely worn off... those events are just a distant memory for the average joe. But what happens when a KMT administration sits in government? What happens after 4 years, if friendly gestures like what happened in 2005 are repeated regularly?

Anonymous said...

By the way, the MAC didn't directly conduct any of these surveys. The MAC is the government institution (formerly headed by Tsai Ying-wen) formally charged with everything mainland related. The chart you see is the MAC recording results from other academic sources.

And these results certainly does try to evaluate long-term interests. It gives "status quo now, independence/unification later" as an option. Why doesn't that address one of your two concerns?

Anonymous said...

By the way, Olympics are getting awfully close. How about a discussion on this MAC survy:
http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/mlpolicy/pos/9609/9609a.pdf

Tommy said...

I think there is more in it than hostility. There is also a cultural angle. I have almost never met a Taiwanese who likes traveling to/from China, or traveling around China. You may know different people than I do, and I am not trying for any sweeping generalisations, but the Taiwanese I have met all seem to perceive a distance between themselves and those across the Strait, and it is not a perception that improves with more contact.

Would such perceptions change under a KMT government? Maybe, maybe not. Why speculate about this or even about "if friendly gestures like what happened in 2005 are repeated regularly" to use your own words, CCT? After all, you don't like "random hypotheticals" ;) Me neither, in fact.