I'm blogging on this because I fear that if you read this article in which the Economist explains why China and Taiwan are divided, your IQ may plummet. Just consider this my small public service in defending the world from the ongoing tsunami of stoopid in the media. Why O why can't we have a better media?
The stoopid starts at the very beginning. With the title: "China and Taiwan are divided." But of course, China and Taiwan aren't "divided." The KMT and CCP governments wish to annex Taiwan to China, whose sovereignty over Taiwan is not supported by any international treaty. It is they who are divided. There is no division between Taiwan and China, because there was never any unity (Added: I discuss this in a post above).
The Economist simply leaves out all the issues -- the fact that for all of Chinese history Taiwan was considered to lie outside China, until the mid-1930s when Chinese expansionist thinkers began to imagine they could grab it. Or the 1895 declaration of independence. Or the island's current undetermined status under international agreements and US and UK policy. Bye-bye.
Consider also how writers on the Taiwan-China problem have incorporated the trope "province of China in the 19th century" into the way they think about Taiwan's relationship with China -- as if it actually meant something. It means precisely nada. That's one of the double standards we use in thinking about Chinese claims, which we apply to no other claims. For example, Algeria was a department of France for over a century, Taiwan a province of the Qing for less than a decade. I look forward to the Economist's next brilliant article on how Algeria and France are divided.
It always saddens me that allegedly democracy and law-supporting media organs can't clearly lay this out for the public. Instead, we just get parroting of Chinese claims when what we should get is subversion and deconstruction of them.
The Economist goes on to present "history":
... Taiwan has since become a democracy, but resentment of the KMT runs deep among many of those who were living on the island before the KMT took refuge, and the descendants of such people. Their identity with greater China is weak. Some want Taiwan to abandon any pretence of a link with China and declare independence.This is another common trope in the media -- downplaying support for independence. It's not "some" who want, but a comfortable majority. But for the Economist to maintain the fiction that China and Taiwan "divided" -- it's actually the KMT and the CCP which are divided -- it must downplay support for independence in Taiwan. But it gets worse -- the Economist actually treats democracy as if it were a bad thing. It urks up:
But perhaps an even bigger reason why the Chinese and Taiwanese presidents have yet to meet is that the Chinese civil war is not officially over. The government in Beijing does not recognise the government in Taipei, and thus does not accept that it has a president. Although the two sides stopped lobbing shells at each other in the 1970s and began talks in the early 1990s, progress has been slow. Discussions were held only through intermediary bodies, while Taiwan’s democratisation soon intervened. Taiwan’s then president and KMT leader, Lee Teng-hui, organised the island’s first direct presidential elections in 1996. In an appeal to native Taiwanese, he shifted his government’s rhetoric to talk not of "one China" but of two states. This effectively granted recognition to the government in Beijing, but it also infuriated it. The Communist Party feared a slide towards Taiwan’s formal declaration of independence and tensions flared. China lobbed unarmed missiles into the Taiwan Strait; America sent aircraft carriers to warn it off. The victory of Mr Lee in the presidential elections, and of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party in two subsequent ones, stymied further progress in cross-strait talks.The brilliance of this paragraph lie in its author's utter blindness to what he is writing -- he opens by saying that the issue between the KMT and CCP is the Chinese Civil War, which is rank nonsense. The Chinese Civil War is a dead letter. The real issue is that -- as he bass-ackwardly identifies further on -- the people of Taiwan don't want to become part of China. If Taiwanese supported annexation to China at the same levels they now support independence, then we would have become part of China decades ago.
The only reason the CCP even talks to the KMT is because the KMT represents its best shot at annexing Taiwan without a war. "Resolving" the Chinese Civil War is actually a rhetorical cover that the CCP and KMT use to justify their talks on how best to annex the island to China and what the take-home for the KMT will be. Thanks, Economist, for repeating that bit of propaganda as if it actually meant something.
Indeed, the only reason we're having a China-Taiwan discussion is because China threatens to maim and murder Taiwanese if it doesn't get to annex Taiwan. Otherwise the Taiwanese would be ignoring Beijing, Chinese Civil War or no.
But look at how the Economist treats democracy -- first it "intervenes" in the glorious progress of annexing Taiwan to China and then it "stymies further progress." That rotten democracy! How dare it!
Read it again -- the author of the piece is lamenting the fact that a democratic island of 23 million people with close relations with the western democracies whose economy is of global importance was not making progress in being annexed to China.
Does it get any more stoopid than that?
The reason we can't make "progress" in cross-strait talks isn't anything that happens in Taiwan -- it is because China is completely belligerent and inflexible. Instead of clearly pointing this out, the Economist puts forth a series of common tropes here
-- false equivalence: Taiwan resistance and Chinese aggression are treated as if they were two equal sides of the same issue.
-- that China is provoked and infuriated and has no agency of its own in the Taiwan-China relationship. Poor China, stop it before it shrills again!
-- that "tensions flare" on their own, like Immaculate Conceptions, without the intervention of human agency. As my readers know, tensions flare because China chooses to ramp them up. Tensions are a policy tool for China. D'oh.
-- that President Ma is a "less confrontational" president (because he and Beijing are allied in annexing Taiwan to China! D'oh!): a common media trope is to assign the adjective "confrontational" or "provocative" to Taiwan while ignoring China's belligerence...
...because when you demand that a territory annex itself to your nation, point your military at it, and say that you will plunge the region into war if you don't get your way, you're not being confrontational, you're being statesmanlike. And when you resist that, you're confrontational.
*sigh*
Divided? The real division is between the people of Taiwan and the democracy they cherish, and the Chinese nationalists on both sides of the Strait who desire to suppress that democracy and annex Taiwan to China. But it appears that we will never see any discussion of that in the Economist...
__________________
Daily Links:
- Minimum wage might go up...4%
- Military budget down slightly, investing in local arms makers
- Hong Kong university survey on how HKKers view Taiwan issues. Support for independence is rising.
- PERSONAL: my sister needs your help for a survey on scientific visualization. Needs mouse, I couldn't do this on a mobile device.
EVENT: Second World Congress of Taiwan Studies: Call for Papers
The Second World Congress of Taiwan Studies will be held at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) June 16-18, 2015. The Congress is being co-organized by Academia Sinica and the SOAS Centre of Taiwan Studies.
Click on READ MORE...
The main themes for the Congress are the State of the Field in Taiwan Studies and Taiwan Studies Revisited. We are particularly seeking papers that critically assess the existing field of research in a variety of disciplines. In addition, we will have a series of papers in which authors revisit their most important work in the light of recent developments and research findings. We will have a total 19 panels that address prominent topics in the field of Taiwan Studies and also a number of practical panels that look at themes such as institution building, publishing and teaching.
We have completed the initial round of invitations and now would like to invite abstracts on the following topics:
1. State of the field on Taiwan’s political communication research
2. State of the field of research on Taiwan film (not documentaries).
3. State of the field of research on Internet Politics in Taiwan
4. State of the field on gender politics in Taiwan
5. State of the field on migration research in Taiwan
6. State of the field on research on 21st century Taiwan literature
7. Assessment of Taiwan’s economic challenges after ECFA
Abstract deadline: October 1, 2014
Abstracts should be submitted to: twstudy@gate.sinica.edu.tw
Abstracts should be no more than 600 words long.
We will announce the accepted abstracts on November 15 2014.
The organizers will cover the costs of participants’ accommodation for three nights in London but not travel costs.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!
Your sister's study excludes the "colorblind," a vague term that could cover any number of perceptual situations. In fact there is a range of color perception, and it is as difficult to distinguish color "blindness" from "normal" vision within this spectrum, as it is to define night "blindness" within the corresponding spectrum for night vision.
ReplyDelete"Instead, we just get parroting of Chinese claims when what we should get is subversion and deconstruction of them."
ReplyDeleteLike this:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12140-005-0008-4
.
ReplyDelete.
.
Yet another reason to support net neutrality.
Without equal access to blogs and other outlets of critical thinking like this, "stoopid" from the corporate media is more likely to translate into a "stoopid" public.
In the US (for instance), net neutrality is on its deathbed and that worries me a lot.
And how often do you hear the net neutrality discussions?
.
.
.
Ah, but you see therein lies the genius of Chinese people. Chinese believe that if you keep repeating the same (wrong) thing over and over again, over time, it will become right! Chinese believe there's no such thing as right or wrong. Victors write the history books, not losers. It's merely a war of attrition: see if you can outlast the opponent. And a lot of the confusion about Taiwan identify stems from the fact that the KMT controlled the education in Taiwan. See what 60 years of controlled education does: a very successful brain-washing campaign. Even many in the DPP are confused not to mention our wonderful Sunflower kids. Keep repeating the same thing over and over again and wrong becomes right, myth becomes fact, evil becomes good, and Taiwanese becomes Chinese. Pure genius! Now, who do you think is stoopid [sic]?
ReplyDeleteNow after that very cynical post, I will provide you with a glimmer of hope. Up till now, I had no idea of any alternative arguments to the above until I came across your blog. So maybe, if courageous people like you continue, we might actually get the world to believe the truth. Keep up the good work and please don't retire!
I thought the Economist article was much better than the average article. It used the clear terms "China" and "Taiwan" to refer to the two countries rather than terms like "the mainland".
ReplyDelete"Taiwan was once a province of China." Very well and unambiguously stated - no suggestion that Taiwan is still a province.
The first paragraph is careful to clarify that it is the governments that are meeting which is useful because the people of Taiwan often feel they aren't being represented in dealings with China.
I agree though that this part is very weak: " Taiwan has since become a democracy, but resentment of the KMT runs deep among many of those who were living on the island before the KMT took refuge, and the descendants of such people. Their identity with greater China is weak. Some want Taiwan to abandon any pretence of a link with China and declare independence." It suggest that only a small dying portion of the population want to clarify their independence when in reality it is also a growing part of the younger generation that sees itself as separate.
As for criticisms of the article:
The argument that Taiwan was only a province of China for 5 years isn't that useful because before that Taiwan wasn't some extra-territorial area (at least legally), it was a part of Fujian province. So if you look at the time Taiwan was a province or part of a province it is much longer than 5 years.
Taiwan and China are indeed "divided". To say they are thus does not imply they should be part of a single country especially in an article that discusses negotiations between the two countries. Countries are often divided. One would say "America and France were divided on how to best handle the situation in Iraq", or "America and Russia remained divided during negotiations at Reykjavik."
ReplyDeleteThe criticism that the article left out the 1895 declaration of independence seems contradicted by the criticism that it included the fact that on paper the Chinese Civil War isn't over yet. Both are legal technicalities that mean precisely nothing. The 1895 declaration of independence not an attempt to separate from China - it was an attempt by Chinese loyalists to prevent being taken by Japan. And the supposed independence was quickly crushed. It is of no more significance than the fact that Kingdom City, Missouri declared independence during the American Civil War. Similarly the idea that the Chinese Civil War isn't over is not worth mentioning. The two governments stopped fighting long ago. They might not like each other but they are no longer at war - the war is over.
The complaint about the article saying that democracy "intervened" seemed overblown to me. I guess I could see someone reading it as a criticism of democracy - but I think most of the Economists readers (it is an English magazine after all) have a favorable enough view of democracy to read it as a criticism of the talks. If democracy broke up those talks then something must have been wrong with the way they were being held, right? Why would a popularly elected leader immediately mess up talks if the views of his people were being advanced? It was, after all, clearly stated in the article that it was the FIRST democratically elected president, so who knows that that un-elected guy had been doing?
Strange, it looks like my reply to Anon got dropped.
ReplyDeleteThe big complaint seems to be that the Economist article isn't taking the side of the goodness and decency in pointing out how and why China is the bad guy. I don't think it is the responsibility of every news writer/analyst to make that argument. Sometimes just presenting the facts should be enough for readers to figure it out for themselves - and people are much more persuaded when they do figure it out for themselves.
ReplyDeleteAgain, as I stated earlier, I agree that leaving out the views of the majority of Taiwanese people is a severe weakness in the article.
But even with that complaint, I've read a lot of bad, misguided, incorrect and biased articles about relations between Taiwan and China and very few really fair articles on the subject. This Economist article isn't perfect, but it is pretty good compared to most. It's better than the average article you would find in the Washington Post or New York Times on any American domestic issue.
Strange, it looks like my reply to Anon got dropped.
ReplyDeleteDon't want to derail the thread with a needless debate.
Economist article isn't taking the side of the goodness and decency in pointing out how and why China is the bad guy. I don't think it is the responsibility of every news writer/analyst to make that argument. Sometimes just presenting the facts
ReplyDeleteWhat facts? The writer has zero grasp of them. That's the whole point of my critique.
Michael
"What facts?"
ReplyDeleteLooking at the first 2 paragraphs sentence-by-sentence I see quite a few facts. Some necessary opinions are thrown in (not everything can quantified or listed in black-and-white terms if you want the article to be accessible to a human reader). It's not perfect as I said earlier, but still much better than most of what I see in most major newspapers and magazines.
Fact:
THIS YEAR senior officials from Taiwan and China have held two meetings in each other’s territory.
Fact:
Both meetings were the first formal contact between the two governments since 1949.
Fact and opinion (they are proposing the meeting, but whether it is a "bigger breakthrough" is opinion):
In recent months officials from Taiwan have been proposing an even bigger breakthrough in relations: a meeting between their president, Ma Ying-jeou, and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping.
Fact:
They have suggested this take place in Beijing in November in the margins of a gathering of leaders from the Asia-Pacific region.
Opinion and fact (coolly is opinion, not inviting Mr. Ma is fact):
China has responded coolly to the proposal and has not invited Mr Ma.
Opinion:
But even if a meeting does not happen in November, hurdles to one appear to be falling away.
Question:
Why has this taken so long?
Fact:
Taiwan was once a province of China.
Fact (and I like the way they say "both governments" - they don't use a term that implies the people of Taiwan agree):
It is still officially regarded as such by both governments.
Fact and opinion - they do disagree but it is opinion to say that is "the problem":
The problem is that neither side agrees on what the "China" in question is: the People’s Republic of China, ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, or the Republic of China, ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (commonly known as the Kuomintang, or KMT).
Fact (although it is arguable to what extent the KMT ruled China):
The KMT ruled China for more than two decades until 1949, when it was overthrown by Mao’s Communist Party and fled to Taiwan.
Fact:
Since then the island has retained the name Republic of China, even though the government there only administers the island of Taiwan itself and a few other much smaller ones.
Opinion (but a good one):
In Taiwan, there is an added complication to the use of the term "Chinese province".
Fact:
Between 1895 and 1945 Taiwan was ruled by Japan, which had seized it after a war with imperial China.
Opinion (but I doubt you would dispute):
Especially in the early years after 1945, KMT rule on the island was brutal.
Factish opinions (I would argue that if it is a democracy it is deeply flawed. Use of the term "deeply" is opinion but supportable by opinion polls):
Taiwan has since become a democracy, but resentment of the KMT runs deep among many of those who were living on the island before the KMT took refuge, and the descendants of such people.
Analysis:
Their identity with greater China is weak.
Fact (but use of "some" is problematic):
Some want Taiwan to abandon any pretence of a link with China and declare independence
Thinking over the article, you have a good point in that the article claims to be explaining why the two countries can't get along. If you're doing that you can't overlook the opinions of the majority of Taiwanese.
ReplyDeleteIf the article were merely claiming to be keeping people up to date on what is happening with current negotiations while providing some background then it would be a a lot easier to forgive the failure to include majority Taiwanese views.
I haven't read the Economist article yet, but the criticism of it seems over-sensitive just based on the evidence Michael presents.
ReplyDeleteTo be outraged over use of the word "divided" and to call the writer "stoopid" for doing so is almost a mirror image of the way one-China ideologues torture language.
Same with the spluttering furry over the "intervention" of democracy. The number of readers who would have read that as an endorsement of undemocratic government would have to be infinitesimal.
There are hints of a subtler, deeper critique in Michael's piece, but that was completely swamped by the bitterness and name-calling.
I am now at the point that I think the debate about Taiwan's status is as poisonous as its status itself.
I think the problem really is that the Taiwanese nation is still an answer to the problem of Taiwan's political status rather than independence being a necessary expression of Taiwanese nationhood. When I say this, of course, I am informed of my stupidity and ignorance. I feel sympathy both for Michael and The Economist. And the Taiwanese, of course. And pity for the Chinese.
Readin et al, there's lots of great stuff out there now, with subtle critiques and shit, not like my poor shallow ineffective hopelessly biased blog that no one reads. You don't have to waste your time on me, and then I won't have to listen to your complaints. Everyone will be happy!
ReplyDeleteMichael
PS Readin, it's a good idea to acquire mastery of facts before pontificating. This is not the first time government to government meetings have been held. Japan seized Taiwan from the pro_China independence government in 1895, but it negotiated for it from the Qing. etc. I could have done a low level fisking of the facts, but i don't bother with that shit unless it is comically bad.
ReplyDeleteI'm more interested in how the writer's ideological commitment to worship of the Establishment has led him to advocate annexing a democracy to an authoritarian state, and into an analysis of events that is both inept and pro-authoritarian. Had he consulted the democratic values his paper allegedly upholds, he would have produced a document that was not only analytically correct and robust but also ethically acceptable. Do what's right, and the rest will follow naturally.
As for "outrage" this is not "outrage" but exasperation. Not much else you can say when you're being criticized by someone who hasn't read what was written. I'm not so postmodern as all that, I actually read the Economist piece before I discussed it.
Michael
I'm still trying to get on board with all the points in your critique. They seem to add up, but when I first read the article (before reading your post), I didn't have the same reaction.
ReplyDeleteI think your strongest point is the last one about what being confrontational means. That might for the basis for a good letter to send into the Economist.
Perhaps its just that as a conservative I have a much lower expectation that reporters and analysts will be fair to my side.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist article just wasn't all that bad compared to so much of the reporting I see. I hate to see the writer's work mocked by someone I think has earned some respect. With so much crap out there I think when someone does a halfway decent job they should be encouraged (mistakes pointed out, but encouraged).
When was the last time you read a Reuters, AP, or Washington Post article about Taiwan that didn't completely misrepresent something? I don't mean just leaving out something important like the Economist did, but plainly and deliberately make a statement that is completely misleading (e.g. the classic "Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949.")?
I think your blog is more significant than you imply. It may not have thousands of readers, but I suspect it is read by quite a few people who study and write about Taiwan.
As for your bias, well that's expected in a blog. If you were writing news articles something different would be expected (but of course you know that).
As for the government to government meetings being first (not that I care that much except you implied I didn't know the facts), you're right that I don't know if these were the first "formal government to government contacts". I am of course aware that there have been party-to-party contacts that served as government to government contacts. And there has most likely been other contact. But I was taking the reporter at his word that there was something "formal" about these contacts. Japan did negotiate the transfer of Taiwan with the Qing, but that negotiation occurred in the context of Japan having just kicked Qing's butt in a war. So on that point the article is both technically correct (Japan did seize it "after a war") and correct in implication (Japan was able to seize it because of the war - i.e. because of terms they were able to exact in negotiation because of the war).
I guess I missed the part where the author advocated Taiwan's annexation by China. He clearly thinks it is a good idea that the two countries establish formal relations and negotiate, but I don't see where he is advocating any particular result of the negotiations. Yes, the two sides have been negotiating through informal channels, but he appears to be advocating for a more normal relationship like what you would see between other pairs of countries.
Finally, I wouldn't criticize if I didn't think there was something worthwhile to criticize. I enjoy the blog, I read every entry (well I sometimes skip really long ones for lack of time - I still want to go back and read about aborigine-Japanese marriages). It's good. Don't take it so hard.
It's something I work on, but I do have a tendency to not say anything when stuff is good. So when I don't write anything just assume I complimented you :)
.
ReplyDelete.
.
You would have to be absolutely tone-deaf to not realize that the author of this piece:
1) minimizes the actual support for Taiwanese independence
2) shamelessly (or through complete ignorance) validates the KMT / CCP talking points. The most egregious being that the KMT are "reasonable" but "restrained" and the DPP (along with democracy) have "stymied" progress. How many times have I heard this meme in the corporate media?!
3) Creates an old fictional rationale and narrative that the KMT and CCP have so much political baggage to resolve. Ma deserves a peace prize if annexation should result!!
You would have to be as blind as a bat not to see that this author is 1) completely ignorant of the dynamics at play or 2) has an agenda.
And the article is "stoopid" for a reason, IMO.
.
.
.
If someone claims he wants to present facts in order to explain a situation and omits the most important one, then imho what's left is propaganda.
ReplyDeleteTherefore in my opinion the starting point of explanation and discussion likewise should be that a vast majority of Taiwanese don't want to be united with China, and that of those most of them want full independence. So now an author might go on to explain why the majority of Taiwanese can't get what they want to the full extent at present. To start with some version of history and not to mention what Taiwanese actually want is propaganda!
I'm still trying to get on board with all the points in your critique. They seem to add up, but when I first read the article (before reading your post), I didn't have the same reaction.
ReplyDeleteI think most people did what you did. Everyone in the corporate media writes this way and it seldom jumps out at us anymore. I miss it too, more often than I like to admit. Easy to be shaped by the long and effective arm of Chinese talking points, easy to forget that Taiwan is a cockpit of competing imperialisms, all of which attempt to shape the way Taiwan is viewed. Easy to forget that the corporate media has an agenda, easy to let the tropes we've absorbed dominate our thinking.
It's one reason why I blog, just to point out the various ways in which readers are presented ideologically-driven interpretations as if they were actual analyses, and again and again view China through a strange lens of double standards which we apply to no other nation, probably China's most important soft power. Sometimes it's why I sound so weird, because we are so used to treating other people's talking points as facts.....
Michael
Mike, the article is fine and represents the reality as far as this pertains to the ROC government and its public dealings with the PRC. You make a lot of claims about what the "majority" of people in Taiwan want. Are you basing these claims on verifiable poll numbers or conversations with other pro-independence foreigners? There is an ugly truth about Taiwan you refuse to acknowledge but at some point will be forced to face: This island is the private property of the KMT administered on behalf of the CCP. And to make matters worse for independence delusionistas, this franchise is being wound down and there will be new signage in the not so distant future. The growing administrative might of the cities and their near sovereignty is the strongest sign of how the end will come. Complain all you like but this deal was done long ago and Taiwan is now an afterthought.
ReplyDeleteAre you basing these claims on verifiable poll numbers or conversations with other pro-independence foreigners?
ReplyDeleteHahaha.
Complain all you like but this deal was done long ago and Taiwan is now an afterthought.
Great arguments there. Though I like your comment about Taiwan being administered by the KMT on behalf of the CCP. Perfect description...
Michael
I don't recall a time when the Economist got Taiwan exactly right so far as aspirations for democracy go and its status as a de facto independent state. Still, I'd agree they've regressed with this piece which adds nothing to our understanding of the situation and repeats the usual tropes. It seems that Beijing's shadow is getting longer and the corporate media is taking no chances breaking new ground on this troublesome topic.
ReplyDelete245
ReplyDelete1. Erm, what do you know about France and Algeria ? 'I look forward to the Economist's next brilliant article on how Algeria and France are -not- divided.
ReplyDeleteThere is more than 'being a department'.
2. Please explain your: ...This is another common trope in the media -- downplaying support for independence. It's not "some" who want, but a comfortable majority....
and your 'the people of Taiwan don't want to become part of China.' ... when all Taiwanese people are buying lands and houses expecting open borders and reunion with China to sell at a better price...
How many is 'some' or 'comfortable majority' when it's the KMT in power? and when 'some' and 'comfortable majority' of people invest in lands and houses to sell to mainland Chinese when borders will open ?
How about we wait for the next elections to have a better view of the situation? What do you know with your 'comfortable majority'?
3. Please explain... the people of Taiwan don't want to become part of China. If Taiwanese supported annexation to China at the same levels they now support independence, then we would have become part of China decades ago.... when the business has been so good for years, everything is possible... not that hard times are coming, who will stand for democracy and poverty?
...and so on...
... whatever it's an article of the Times or your own article,,, it's still an article written by a foreigner ! just like me.
How about we wait for the next elections to have a better view of the situation? What do you know with your 'comfortable majority'?
ReplyDeleteThere's a wealth of polling data on this. Perhaps you could take a moment and educate yourself, instead of wasting everyone's time posting here. Start with the link to Emerson Niu's paper on my blog.
Michael
The reason the west has a different point of view to Taiwan-China than they do toward France-Algiers is that...they all look alike... LMFAO or is it sadly true?
ReplyDelete