In the run-up to the 2000 Taiwan election, the Washington Post featured a short piece by a reporter named John Pomfret, an interview with then-presidential candidate James Soong. Pomfret presented Soong, at that time a lifelong opponent of democracy, as a democratic reformer. I responded with a short letter protesting this mischaracterization of Soong's political career, which the Post duly printed.Fast-forward to 2008, and Pomfret has established himself as a major Beijing correspondent. There is no question of his abilities or wisdom in interpreting China. Yet as his recent blog post in the Washington Post blog section shows, Pomfret is like almost every other Beijing correspondent when it comes to writing on Taiwan, displaying an unerring ability to reflect Beijing's propaganda themes rather than develop a rich and independent perspective on the island's politics. This problem will only worsen as Taiwan is re-subsumed into the idea of "China" as KMT-CCP links grow over time and the island's identity is smothered....
Pomfret's main idea is that Taiwan offers a democratic model that can change China, and that the meeting between Vice-president Elect Vincent Siew and China's leader, Hu Jin-tao, is A Really Good Thing. As he says:
This is good news, but not just for the economy of the region. It's also good news for those who care about the preservation of the world's only majority-Chinese democracy (Taiwan) and the prospect of political change in China.
Why? The reasons will be drearily familiar to readers who have come to know and love the media bogeyman Mad Chen©, the Wrecker of Worlds. Pomfret's accusations are basically a run-down of Beijing/KMT talking points:
....So Chen resorted to a policy of what the Chinese liked to call "creeping independence" which basically meant seizing every opportunity to enrage Beijing....
...The keys to Taiwan's security and - critically - to the preservation of its full-throated democracy, [Ma] argued, are good relations with Beijing, not the constant tension Chen seemed to crave...
....means that after eight years of failed leadership by President Chen Shui-bian, who bungled the island's security and its economy....
We've beaten to death here Beijing's successful isolation of corporate lawyer and democracy supporter Chen as a "radical' for using referendums and democracy, while the media refrains from similar criticism of Beijing for its missile build-up and threats to plunge the region into war over Taiwan's democracy. I'll skip the economic lecture about the 'bungled' economy; readers will know what the more complex reality is.
This brings up the real question. Is the "warming" a good thing for Taiwan and for democratic prospects in China. Pomfret argues "yes." It almost makes a kind of sense, but that is only because everything important to assessing the answer to that question is missing from the Pomfret's discussion, as it generally is from media presentations on the Taiwan-China relationship.
Pomfret's presentation omits a number of key facts. For example, Pomfret never tells the reader that the KMT and Beijing have been coordinating policy to suppress the island's democratic development for the last few years. For example, after the most recent KMT Chairmanship election, the new Chairman, Wu Po-hsiung, immediately announced a visit to Beijing. Pomfret also leaves out Ma Ying-jeou's long career as a anti-democracy stalwart, and his ideological beliefs about China. Also missing are the chilling invocations of Singapore's one-party state as a model for Taiwan by a number of major KMT politicos, including future President Ma.
What happened in Hainan Island was a bit of political theatre aimed at the global media -- Vincent Siew was seated with the satraps of Hong Kong and Macao, a clear indicator there! The real negotiations are ongoing between the two parties behind the scenes, and have been for many years.
When representatives from two parties that share a pro-China ideology and despise democracy meet, the long-term prospects for democracy dim, not brighten. Neither the Chinese Nationalist Party in Taiwan nor the Chinese Communist Party in China has any interest in deepening or broadening democratic development in Taiwan. On the contrary, both have powerful vested interests in a hollowing out of democracy on Taiwan. If Taiwan's democracy really does have the potential to effect positive political change in China, you can be sure that it will be a priority of Beijing's leaders have that democracy neutered.
What does that suggest? The sad fact is that as long as the KMT is running Taiwan, China is far more likely to change Taiwan than Taiwan is to change China.
[Taiwan]
14 comments:
I agree and made my own brief post on Pomfret's blog.
The only way China would want to copy a Taiwan democratic model is if the KMT can demonstrate that pre-determined results can be guaranteed as in Singapore, and if the Chinese are confident this can be replicated.
You know, American are idiots, period.
These idiots supposed that "Opening China's door." would make China democracy.
And they supposed "capitalism would make China democratic.
Then they supposed that economic development would make China a democracy.
And not too long ago, they said that middle class people would force China to be become democratic.
Now, they are saying Taiwan would make China more democratic? Well, idiots do not change, do they?
( Of course, you are not really an American. Or, are you ? ;-)
Michael, I was glad to see you left a comment on that article. It certainly needed a response.
I wonder if John Pomfret has ever visited Taiwan and what kind of contacts he has in Taiwan. Like you said Beijing correspondents aren't really in a position to provide good commentary on Taiwan.
There's a bizarre myth circulating which seems to have gone mainstream even in the West, which suggests that Taiwan can be made a sacrificial lamb to the CCP which will convince it that "the outside" is no longer a threat and encourage China to democratise. Of course, it ignores the fact that doing so will rather secure the current system, since it will be percieved that the CCP was right all along and that democracy is passe.
The KMT just wants to be the sole, official "Taiwan Authority" that the PRC always talks about in reference to Taiwan's government. The idea that somehow Vincent Siew would give Hu Jintao pointers on democracy is ludicrous.
.
.
.
Again, another up is down and down is up presentation by the American corporate media's "truthiness" department.
I oftentimes wish there was regular 'Taiwan / China' segment on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart. Maybe this WaPo writer can audition for the job. Picture him in front of a backdrop of 1500 missiles as he waxes poetic about this watershed moment for China's democracy movement...
Pomfret: "Who would have thunk it? A party that has a proud history of corruption, terror and authoritarianism manages to charm the iron-fist government of China into relinquishing it's power on a billion people only after 8 years of diplomatic ice towards a party that was formed on the principles of democracy and freedom. Those authoritarianites really have a wicked sense of irony, don't they Jon?!"
And then Pomfret summarizes the whole situation succinctly...
Pomfret: "It goes to show you, Jon. If you're going to lead a Chinese communist towards freedom -- you need to have a bloody history of murder and repression to make them "trust" you. It's sort of like the Stolkholm syndrome in reverse.
Back to you, Jon..."
(insert audience laughter here)
.
.
.
Accept my applause for telling it like it is on Pomfret's blog. I directed readers to read your comment rather than the original article.
For too long now I've been telling everyone unfortunate enough to have to listen to me that the KMT is quite clearly coordinating its policy with Beijing but no one seems to think this is as perverse as I do. I was chatting to a lot of the international academics, analysts, etc in Taiwan for the recent election and they were all very much aware that the KMT is basing its policy on its negotiations with China. But that didn't stop any of these academics from viewing Ma's election as a positive step for Taiwan's democracy. Too many of them were far too cautious in their comments especially when they found out I work for a TV station here.
My only source of comfort in the whole situation is that the only reason the KMT won the presidency was by going green. Hopefully they'll mess something up along the way, allow a "one China" in somewhere where it shouldn't be or maybe the increase in Chinese tourists will begin to piss people off. Hopefully Taiwan's voters will be alert to this and not lulled into a comatose state by their promised salary increases. Then retribution for the KMT will be as swift as it was for the DPP.
Nice to meet you, Samson. The media presentations on Ma drive me absolutely crazy.
Michael
I agree with you 100% However I was hoping you could elaborate on one thing you said:
For example, Pomfret never tells the reader that the KMT and Beijing have been coordinating policy to suppress the island's democratic development for the last few years
Perhaps because I am so removed from Taiwan (except in solidarity, of course!) I don't know of such things. Could you list some?
The people here that voted the corrupt, authoritarian, pro-China KMT are short sighted. They think that if all goes wrong, they can simply "vote" the KMT out of power. What ignorance.
P.S. Your comments on that Pomfret article were right on the money. You should post your first version on your blog in it's entirety.
P.S.S. CSM had a piece on China/Taiwan today.
Anon, care to provide evidence that ROC citizens will be unable to vote Mr. Ma out in 2012 if he disappoints?
I think I'm missing something here, regarding the planned abolition of direct elections.
American (and most western) reporters, media, politicians and businessmen are greedy bastards who kiss China's ass so they can get a piece of the pie.
They turn their heads when China violates human rights or bullies Taiwan.
Its nauseating having to read the ignorant reporting here in US.
Channing--the KMT stolen assets, with the KMT solidly in power, will continue to be liquidated and won't be returned. That means in 2012, they will again greatly outspend the DPP.
If money and advertising doesn't matter, then why do they bother spending the money?
It's hard for people to see past the advertising. If the KMT weren't allowed to spend their party assets, in 2000, Chen would have had a near majority and in 2004 it wouldn't have been so close. And though I don't think Hsieh would have won this time, it would have been closer this time too.
Money makes Taiwanese blind. Just like it does in the US except that there are campaign finance limits to keep it pretty even. And the limits are only failing because of internet donations, which I really can't see a problem with since they are all small sums from millions of individuals...
Sorry, I don't see a clear correlation between KMT spending and election victories. KMT must have vastly outspent the DPP but still lost 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
Many demographic sectors (example: educated youth) are especially disgruntled with Taiwan's political circles, so I don't buy the argument that KMT electioneering swayed them.
Post a Comment