Right here. Neither title nor lede was mine -- and the lede was much better than anything I could have thought of...
If you have read my blogposts you already know what is here...
On the morning of Tuesday, April 12, 2016, the news broke in Taiwan that eight Taiwanese fraud suspects had been deported from Kenya to China the previous Friday (Mainland Affairs Council officials said they knew at midnight on Friday). That group was quickly followed by the deportation of another 37 to China. This caused a media firestorm. Commentators as varied as pro-Taiwan commentator J. Michael Cole, to former UN Ambassador John Bolton, to Elizabeth Economy at the Council on Foreign Relations, along with many media outlets, immediately read this action in terms of the conventional media framework for understanding cross-strait relations: everything that happens relates to the sovereignty issue between Taiwan and China. China, they told us, was signaling to incoming President Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that things were going to be tougher, and tensions were rising. This reading of events sells papers and attracts clicks, but it is fundamentally wrong. In reality, though China was signaling Taiwan, it had nothing to with Tsai Ing-wen or China’s desire to annex Taiwan..._______________________
[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!
8 comments:
If the deportations had nothing to do with cross strait relations, or with sovereignty why did China praise Kenya for supporting the "one china policy" when asked to comment on the matter ? If the actions had nothing to do with the "one china policy" in the view of China, why would they praise someone for supporting it ?
China's "one china policy" has quite a lot to do with China's desires to annex Taiwan, so although you might think that these actions had nothing to do with cross strait relations the Chinese government clearly is of a different opinion which makes it a bit hard to take your article seriously as one of the main principals of the saga clearly contradicts your analysis.
Hi, there is a typo in the title of your article. Thank you for covering this topic.
China's "one china policy" has quite a lot to do with China's desires to annex Taiwan, so although you might think that these actions had nothing to do with cross strait relations the Chinese government clearly is of a different opinion which makes it a bit hard to take your article seriously as one of the main principals of the saga clearly contradicts your analysis.
Or maybe, just maybe, you've completely misinterpreted what was said because you haven't done your homework and didn't read anything that China actually said directly about these deportations, and didn't properly contextualize the One China remarks directed at Kenya. That's why it's a bit hard to take your criticism seriously.
Michael
Hi,
Thanks Michael for the revert on my comment, but could you elaborate what it is that I have misinterpreted or what I missed? I based my comment on this statement from the foreign ministry of the PRC issued when asked about the deportations
“Maintaining the One-China principle is an important prerequisite and a necessary basis for all countries in the world in developing relations with China,” the spokesman, Lu Kang, said. “We highly appreciate the Kenyan government’s long-term commitment to the One-China principle.”
SI am sure that we would both agree on that the "one-china policy", at least as often defined by the PRC, has something to do with PRCs desire to annex Taiwan. So, if the deportations had nothing to do with the PRCs view of the "one-china policy", why would the foreign ministry see it appropriate to applaud Kenyas commitment to the principe when asked to comment on the deportations ?
I do belive that the events prior to the deportation was exactly as you described, i.e. merely a law enforcement matter without any or much thought to cross straits politics. But, the way the matter was handled once it did became news not only in Taiwan but also globally made it in to a cross straits policy issue. China could have defused the situation, but instead they chose to throw their weight around by making statements about one china etc.
Thank you for this more polite inquiry.
“Maintaining the One-China principle is an important prerequisite and a necessary basis for all countries in the world in developing relations with China,” the spokesman, Lu Kang, said. “We highly appreciate the Kenyan government’s long-term commitment to the One-China principle.”
This is a common comment that china makes. It was made because the kenyans excluded the Taiwanese MOFA reps from the deportation process based on the One China principle (as far as I could tell). It's usually difficult to spot what's not here: any reference to the Kenya 45. The spokesman was responding in the usual way to the usual question, by quoting One China, always a safe thing for him to say.
Nowhere did any Chinese say that the men were sent to China under that principle. In the Public Security Bureau statement Taiwan was criticized for not prosecuting scammers properly, but again, no One China statement. China never said "we are deporting these men to China because they are Chinese." China instead said "we are having these men deported to China because they have harmed our citizens." It refrained from making that statement -- instead it emphasized, properly, the commitment to public safety.
Hence -- ironically -- you made the connection not because China made the connection (it never did) but because you were viewing things in the cross-strait sovereignty framework, like most other people. But China avoided invoking that framework.
Is it possible that in at least one way, the PRC is shooting itself in the foot (and doing Taiwan a favour) with such actions?
Outside the region, there seems to be a very poor understanding of the 'one / two Chinas' question. People may know that the Mainland wants to annex Taiwan, but not much about the 20th century historical background to the claims and counter-claims.
The resulting controversy from incidents such as those in Kenya may be helping to publicise the nature of the issue.
With better understanding, in the longer term, perhaps other nations will start re-evaluating their shabby treatment of Taiwan on the world stage. Is this being too optimistic?
Hi,
After reading your article on The Diplomat, even though it is possible that the purpose of the Chinese government's actions in the beginning was not related to the DPP or Tsai Ing-wen, I kind of disagree that their motive was purely due to not tolerating "Taipei’s habit of giving scammers light sentences which they could commute to a fine, or no time at all." In a incident recently after the Kenyan case the Taiwanese police couldn't arrest the suspects who were deported from Malaysia right after the flight with the Chinese not providing the evidence they had on the case, which both sides would share evidences in the past (source in Traditional Mandarin: http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20160416/840308/ ).
Also, even though I may be biased with my stance of pro-Taiwan, the timing of China making such change of action makes people hard to not relate with the election on January 16. If they are unhappy of the current term of government, why wait until now to their displeasure when any action could be translated as an action towards the incoming government? I could be wrong if there were other cases between January 16 and the Kenyan case, but the situation right now is pretty sensitive that any action made by the Chinese government on Taiwan could be deemed as a change of attitude on cross-strait relations, whether it is or isn't.
Also, even though I may be biased with my stance of pro-Taiwan, the timing of China making such change of action makes people hard to not relate with the election on January 16.
The timing was due to the March 2016 release of prisoners and the termination of the long court case against all 45. It had nothing to do with Tsai Ing-wen, unless you want to argue that China arranged all that in Jan of 2015.
er the Kenyan case the Taiwanese police couldn't arrest the suspects who were deported from Malaysia right after the flight with the Chinese not providing the evidence they had on the case, which both sides would share evidences in the past
The Taiwanese scammers were let go right away, which China criticized. 18 of the 20 were rounded up again when the evidence against them showed up.
Another batch from Indonesia that same week was not the subject of Chinese interference. I doubt Beijing asked for the Malaysian ones. Instead, i think Kuala Lumpur contacted Beijing to ask if it wanted them. We simply don't have the information we need about what actually happened.
Post a Comment