The Taipei Times editorialized today on the international media, channeling me:Leaving behind eight long years of skewed reporting on former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), who for some news agencies was the agent provocateur par excellence, who never failed to “anger” and “provoke” Beijing, or “alienate” Washington with his “extremism” and “separatism,” the post-Chen era promised to bring with it a sea change in reporting on Taiwan and its new president, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
At long last, the elected leader of Taiwan was “charismatic” and “Harvard-educated,” the epitome of “pragmatism” who was seeking to make “peace” with long-time “rival” China. During the presidential election, many agencies threw their supposed journalistic neutrality out the window and unashamedly supported Ma and the KMT by trumpeting the promises of an immediate fix to the economy that the previous government under Chen had “mismanaged.”
I've abused that kind of fawning reportage of Ma before, but it is nice to see the Taipei Times doing it again too. They then went on to point out:
It is no surprise, therefore, that some news agencies’ coverage of the rally on Saturday misrepresented the event, with at least two different agencies reporting that tens of thousands of “separatists” were protesting against Ma’s efforts to improve relations with China. Not only was this characterization wrong, but it was dangerous, as it implied that Taiwanese — or at least the “separatists” — are against peace, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
Aside from the perhaps impatient discontent with the KMT administration’s handling of the economy and the failure of Ma to live up to his promises, what the tens of thousands of Taiwanese who rallied on Saturday were protesting was the speed at which he has sought rapprochement with Beijing and the long series of concessions he has made to achieve this, with no apparent sign of reciprocity on China’s part.
It is not difficult to find out which agencies those were. One was DPA (Deutsche Press-Agentur) which has a long and dishonorable history of apparent pro-China reporting on Taiwan, as I've remarked before on this blog:
Tens of thousands of Taiwan separatists marched through Taipei Saturday to protest President Ma Ying-jeou's pro-China policy and the island's economic woes.Holding placards and shouting slogans, the demonstrators marched through the main streets in Taipei and held a rally in front of the Presidential Office Building to mark 100 days since Ma took office.
DPA also said that:
Several public opinion polls have shown that while most Taiwanese support Ma's seeking peace with China, between 30-40 per cent of Taiwanese are dissatisfied with the economy.
Note how this construction works. The protesters are "separatists" -- a loaded political word that assumes Taiwan is part of China -- and the DPA adopts Ma's position on the KMT's actions -- they are peace-seeking (not capitulationist). This would make the anti-Ma position the anti-peace-seeking position, which is of course absurd. The pro-independence and the pro-China sides both want peace -- the independence side, a peace among equals; the pro-China side, peace through capitulation. Tsai Ing-wen's characterization of the KMT's position on China as "I've stopped struggling, please don't beat me anymore," is quite apt.
On a positive note, the report does term Ma's KMT the "China-friendly" party, which I suspect in DPA's hands is a term of approbation. On the whole I hope that DPA will find more neutral language to describe the political positions of both the KMT and its opponents (the Saudis also appear to be among the many that have used this report, showing how the propaganda is catapulted all over the world by the wire services).
The DPA also repeats the falsehood that there were 40,000 people present, citing the police. AP also cited the police for the 40K estimate -- but the police supposedly stopped providing such estimates 4 years ago. Now that the KMT is back, it seems the policy has changed. Anyone can view the numerous pictures on the internet that show far more than 40,000 marched yesterday (see my discussion below).
[Taiwan]
Surely, blaming the KMT on the economy after only returning to power for 100 days is a bit premature.
ReplyDeleteAccusing them of China love is another issue and closer to truth.
Perhaps, a program to give them an easy return to China is more realistic.
Taiwan is already invaded!
I am getting tired of this line of thinking myself. The issue is not that the KMT is to blame for the economy. The issue is that the KMT bent over backwards to make promises to the Taiwanese before they were elected, and few of those promises have been kept. One that has been kept, the opening of Taiwan to up to 3,000 Chinese daily, is a wash so far as not even 300 Chinese are visiting daily. Ma has extended olive branch after olive branch. He has "warmed ties" from his end so much that the Taiwan Strait must be boiling by now. And what has China done to turn up the heat? NOTHING!
ReplyDeleteReciprocity is needed in any negotiations. Ma does not seem to agree, nor does his party. They are recklessly opening Taiwan for uncertain benefit.
If time is needed to gauge the success of his programs, then time should be taken before moving forward with other reckless negotiations, and certainly China should be made to show a little goodwill.
Preaching to the choir I am, yes, but your first point, Anon, misses the point entirely, although it is surely one of the few things that is keeping more people off the streets at the moment.
Well, the economy is not one of the strong points against the KMT.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand the KMT capitalized on its claim to "fix" the "broken" economy during its whole campaign, 633, Mashanghao, "Chinese tourists will make us rich", etc.
Therefore I think its quite justified to remind them of their promises.
Ma was rushing to cash his campaign proposals without seeing most of those are mutual with Chinese government. Nobody here would actually suggest the reason for that unexpected few chinese tourists, it's notable that people were unlikely to move abroad while olympics were in domestic, and the recent chinese economy decline also had kept them home, which makes it inappropriate to dishonour Chinese government of this issue alone.
ReplyDeleteIt's the bloggers credit to tell Taiwan apart from China, there however lies a common sense that it was due to civil war that the two lands ended breaking up and hosting different regimes. Neither of their constitutions shows any evidence revealing Taiwan and China are respectively standing-alone countries without any ties.
This is around a year old, but I wasn't sure if you had seen it. Apparently you were making some PhD students 'uncomfortable' last year with your Taiwan hating ways.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, you Americans...
http://thuicc.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/culture-and-education-in-taiwan-an-americans-views/#comments
From the TT editorial:
ReplyDelete"None of those who took to the street, however, would argue that defending Taiwan’s sovereignty cannot be accompanied by improved relations with Beijing. In fact, achieving the former is contingent on the latter, and anyone who says otherwise would be laughed out of town and rightly dubbed an extremist."
So true but something many TIers refuse to acknowledge. The fact of the matter is Taiwan will never become independent unless China is convinced that an independent Taiwan is in China's best interests and will not be a threat to China's security. Forming alliances and waxing poetic about Japanese militarists and American neo-conservatives only vindicates those in China who believe TI is a mortal threat to China. I believe China could live with a truly independent Taiwan, but most TI commentary I've seen seeks Taiwanese dependence on the US and/or Japan.
China may someday permit Taiwan to become independent. That is why everyone advocates good relations and positive interactions with China. But at present that day appears far off, which is why smart people advocate alliances.
ReplyDeleteMichael
Michael Turton said...
ReplyDelete"smart people advocate alliances."
I think forming alliances is smart in a general sense, but forming alliances exclusively with China haters when China's voluntary or involuntary acquiescence is needed for Taiwan's de jure independence doesn't sound so smart to me.
The TIers would seem much less menacing to world peace if they also formed alliances with liberal American and Japanese organizations, and alliances with other important countries like Russia and China that are equal in weight to the alliances they seek with right wing Japanese politicians and American neo-conservatives.
South Korea has excellent relations with the US, Japan, Russia, and China. Koreans, north and south, are a fiercely independently people in the true sense of the term "independent." Most TIers, on the other hand, seek Taiwan depencence on the US and/or Japan by taking sides in big power competition. Not a smart strategy for a small island.