The war in Iraq dominates the news media in such a way that it is less clear just what is taking place than it would be with less reporting. Television news spends about 95 percent of its time on the war. The larger newspapers expand their coverage in a special separate section in addition to the front page news. All other news has to struggle to be seen. But in the back pages, the number two international news story is a tie between North Korea and the SARS epidemic. China doesn't do well in either of these two, at least in the American press.
These last few months, China's image has changed considerably. It was not very long ago that China seemed hell-bent on being seen as a leader in the international community. Then-president Jiang Zeming (江澤民) made every effort to be seen hobnobbing with world leaders in both bilateral and multilateral settings. That objective was helped by world leaders who saw a China involved in the world community as a desirable development (although there was always doubt about its intentions).
This image remained intact even after Sept. 11. China was contributing to the war on terrorism -- somehow. It has never been made clear exactly how, or how much of this positive attitude by the world community was meant as much to encourage responsible behavior as it was a reflection of China's influence. Then Iraq rose into the public eye. China's image as a world-class power slowly began to change.
For whatever reasons, be it the importance of the American relationship, or its growing dependence on Middle Eastern oil, China positioned itself firmly on the fence. It has voted in the UN Security Council when there was unanimity, but not otherwise, though it does make public statements about the importance of the UN and the evils of war. If China was to be held accountable for what it has said, Taiwan could relax. China would need UN permission to attack Taiwan, and if it attacked without it, would violate its own moral stand as now stated by them. In any event, this kind of neutral grandstanding may be seen by some as clever, but it does not create the image of a world leader.
With the entrance of the North Korean nuclear issue onto the international scene, China's image continues to go south, unless furthering its "great power" image is not still its objective. China has expended a considerable amount of resources helping North Korea maintain its position as a buffer between China and the rest of Northeast Asia. It entered the Korean War for this purpose and lost thousands of young soldiers by doing so -- ordering, as an established tactic, a great many of them to attack straight through their own artillery barrage. This was something I personally witnessed as a young infantry officer during that war.
After the Korean War, China continued to aid the North, including help with the development of missile technologies and nuclear-power capabilities. It was natural, therefore, that when North Korea divulged it had continued its development of nuclear weapons -- despite its agreement not to do so -- that the US turned to Beijing for assistance in coping with the problem. Since then, there has clearly been no change in North Korea's behavior. Why not?
Beijing maintains that it does not have the extent of leverage over North Korea that they are generally thought to have. In any event, we are told, Beijing is working quietly in Pyongyang. The lack of transparency in this process instills doubt. The image of a powerful China pressing a small neighbor to behave doesn't hold water under such circumstances. The image, in fact, is to the contrary.
The image of a rapidly emerging power, bolstered by WTO membership, hosting the APEC meeting, winning the competition to become the site of the 2008 Olympics, among other events, has already been damaged. Now comes the rapid spread of a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), apparently emanating from China. More than either of the events above, the poor handling of this disaster by Beijing not only harms its image, it reveals a fundamental weakness.
In some respects, this is the same weakness demonstrated by Beijing in its quashing of the Falun Gong movement. The Chinese leadership could not accept that a movement of this kind was beyond its control. Similarly, some five months ago, it could not publicly reveal that it knew nothing about the virus and that the problem was therefore beyond its control. The result has been a disaster. Not only have a growing number of people died from the virus, the damage to Hong Kong's economy is still growing and will take a long time to recover. The contagion has spread to other countries and since there is no certainty about how the virus is transmitted, there is uncertainty about how to cope with it.
Taiwan has every right to publicly criticize Beijing for endangering the lives of Taiwan's citizens through blatant mismanagement. It is equally right to criticize the World Health Organization (WHO) for putting politics above its reason for existing. With the possible exception of China, what member country would criticize the WHO for dealing directly with Taiwan at a time of crisis? If there is any bright side to this issue, or to the changing perception of China, it is that after many years of publicly pleading for participation in the WHO, Taiwan might now receive a warmer reception.
There is a broader message as well, however. For people everywhere, and particularly in Taiwan and among the young, there is a lesson about the priorities of differing systems of government when they deal with life-threatening crises such as the SARS outbreak. The authoritarian system found in China puts stability and the leadership's survival as the first priority. A democratic government, such as Taiwan's, puts its people first. Compare the response to the earthquake that hit Taiwan a few years ago. Emergency groups from all over the world were welcomed in to help aid the victims. In China, a contagious and lethal virus was discovered, yet it was hidden from the people and the groups in the wider world that could help. Which government would you rather live under? If China wants to become a prominent player in the world community, it ought to start acting like one.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group.The views expressed in this article are his own.
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS