Stratfail

Dried fruit chips are especially good if you mix them with dust, automobile exhaust, and tire particulates.

It's a mark of the general improvement in things since I opened this blog over 13 years ago (OMG) that there is less and less garbage out there that unthinkingly replicates China's discourses on annexation of Taiwan. But today Stratfor treated us to its wisdom on China's urgent need to "reunify" Taiwan -- yep, Beijing's description of the Taiwan-China relationship is faithfully forwarded. It's a hilarious compendium of pro-China perspectives, geostrategic impoverishment, and plain error. In other words, this writer has a great future ahead of himself as a leading media commentator...

Let's have a look...

One of the biggest obstacles to China's campaign for "national rejuvenation," President Xi Jinping's plan to guide the country to world prominence, lies across 180 kilometers (112 miles) of water on the island of Taiwan. The mainland's drive to return China to a position of global strength — which it hopes to complete by 2049 — includes reunification with Taiwan.

Taiwan is not an "obstacle" to Chinese power (note that China has grown quite powerful and enjoyed excellent economic growth without Taiwan) nor is what is going on "reunification". It's annexation. At least have the grace to put "reunification" in quotes. Taiwan is a target. It's time to stop using language that treats Taiwan as a "problem". Onward....

While successive governments in Beijing have tried without success to reclaim or to reintegrate the island, they did prevent it from pulling away.  

The whole piece has this casual, hazy approach to history. It was not Beijing but the KMT in Taiwan that squelched Taiwan independence via authoritarian power. Beijing has never had the power to prevent Taiwan independence. Let's hear Fairbank from 1957 again:

The Chinese on Taiwan deserve an opportunity for self-determination, to join the mainland or remain free of it as they wish. There is little doubt today that they would seek freedom from the mainland.

That sentiment has always been crushed by the KMT...

It's important when you write on China that you never adopt its point of view or the vocabulary that it puts forward. Otherwise, it's GIGO. More GIGO....

Today, with the island's younger generations displaying an increasing desire for independence, the United States is showing signs of greater support for Taiwan. These factors have helped to push tensions across the Taiwan Strait to their highest point in a decade.

Let's rewrite that so it reads properly:

Today, with the island's younger generations displaying an increasing desire for independence, the United States is showing signs of greater support for Taiwan. These factors have pushed Beijing to increase tensions across the Taiwan Strait to their highest point in a decade.

Tensions are not caused by the US or Taiwan. They are caused by Beijing's desire to annex Taiwan.

Moving on:

Over the decades, Beijing has alternated between military intimidation and economic sweeteners to try to keep the government in Taipei in line

The "economic sweeteners" have two functions: (1) hollow out Taiwan's economy and (2) prepare the domestic audience for war by showing that Beijing has exhausted all peaceful approaches. Oh, and of course, to get the media to dutifully reproduce this language about "economic sweeteners" to make Beijing look reasonable. Onward...

Recently, the mainland's elevated military posture along with increasing diplomatic coercion and heated rhetoric about reunification have strained relations with Taiwan. A growing willingness by both Taipei and Washington to break cross-strait protocols has aggravated tensions.

Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaha. What "growing willingness?" What cross-strait protocols are being referred to? No concrete examples are given, of course, but you can be sure that if tensions are rising, it surely is the fault of Taipei and Washington.

Once again, resistance is necessary, and does not "aggravate" tensions. Beijing chooses to aggravate tensions to influence Washington's policy response and media presentations. There's no need for false balance. Onward...

The current U.S. administration is not the first to challenge the "One China" principle — mainland China's view that it has sovereignty over Taiwan — but the changing balance of power between the mainland and island is heading into a pivotal period.

Note that we are deep into this article and the writer is still referring to "the mainland", so completely has Beijing's discourse captured his presentation.

The writer could have noted that US policy is that Taiwan's status is unsettled, which would help the reader understand what is going on. But I suspect from the way that language grows vague around this point that the author doesn't understand that...

Using Beijing propaganda to explain Beijing's action...

For China, Taiwan is a last holdout to its long-awaited national reunification 

...nope. It's annexation, and it won't be the "last". As anyone who has studied this knows, the Senkakus and Okinawa are next after Taiwan. Then islands around Phils... then the gods only know what new territories the Chinese will claim...

Remember what I said about the casual, hazy history...

During its history, China has ruled Taiwan indirectly for long spans. But the island has also been home to European and Japanese colonies

...."China" has never ruled Taiwan. Ever. For all of Chinese history down to the end of the Ming, the island was officially ignored, occasionally visited by individual people from China, but never ruled by any Han emperor. The Manchus annexed the west and NE coast beginning in 1683, but the first government to rule the whole island was Japan's.

This lazy sentence is profoundly indicative of how Beijing has gotten people to accept the hazy idea of "ancient" Chinese rule over Taiwan. Onward...

With term limits on the Chinese presidency removed, Xi could attempt to address reunification during his tenure.

Yup. Many people scared of this possibility.

Finally, Beijing is increasingly concerned that the understanding of the "One China" policy — under which the United States recognizes Beijing as representing China — could be at risk. The United States could move closer to recognizing Taiwanese independence or could adopt a more assertive and visible military presence on the island. 

The author's lazy cluelessness is on display again. The US recognizes Beijing as the sovereign government of China -- but doesn't include Taiwan in that China. Hence there is no contradiction between the US "one China" policy and Taiwan independence. What the author wants to say is that the US could use the possibility of support for Taiwan independence as a lever against China.

But more deeply, note the problem of the article -- it is focused on Beijing, not on Taiwan. Compare any article on the Baltics and the Russian threat to this one -- few in the west adopt Russian vocabulary and discourse to frame the Russian desire to annex the Baltics the way writers routinely adopt Beijing's perspective on its desire to annex Taiwan. The writer never forthrightly acknowledges the idea that Beijing is involved in expansion which Taiwan is resisting, like Estonia vs Russia...

Yet another problem with this piece is here:

Between Two Giants: Taiwan's Future
Taiwan's path ahead is uncertain and risky. It sits between two giants locked in a great power competition, and its limited international clout and increasingly outmatched military puts it at a disadvantage. 

The author treats the Taiwan issue as a thing between Washington and Beijing, but of course, there's Tokyo. And Phils. And the states around the South China Sea. The world this writer describes is a geostrategic bubble world in which Japan does not exist. Taiwan is crucial to Japan's defense, and war in the Taiwan Strait would likely involve Japan (quick, where are those US planes that might defend Taiwan based?).

The ending of the piece is sturdy and except for its Beijing-centric language, not too bad. Regrettably the author keeps referring to "growing" independence sentiment. Let's look at Axelbank's 1963 piece in Harper's:

If a poll were taken now to determine what status Formosans want for their island, I am sure that at least a two-thirds majority would favor independence.

...sentiment is the same as its always been...

I'd just like to thank Stratfor for this opportunity to practice. Been a while...
_______________________
[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!