Print

Mail

wiki links

Foreign media ignorant of Taiwan

`With this China-centered mentality, unless Beijing gets excited and threatens Taiwan with military force, whatever happens in Taiwan is not news. Therefore, foreign journalists tend to read Beijing's mind and exaggerate the seriousness of an event, hoping that their editors will play it up.'

Taiwan's government is still having problems with foreign media, as can be seen in the coverage of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) recent remarks to a pro-Taiwan-independence group in Tokyo.

Three major US dailies, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, all had it wrong in their headlines that screamed "Taiwan's Chen Backs Vote on Independence" or something along those lines. Obviously it was a factual error. Chen didn't say this and all three stories filed by the papers' correspondents correctly reported that Chen urged Taiwanese to consider legislation that would provide a legal base for a referendum, if it became necessary, to decide Taiwan's future. It is a giant step from the passage of legislation to the actual referendum.

In the context of Chen's remark, it was clear that he regards the status quo as China and Taiwan being "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait. But he argued that because China has been trying to impose its "one China" principle and "one country, two systems" formula on Taiwan, the status quo is being threatened by China. Therefore, Taiwan has to consider legislation for a referendum to let the people of Taiwan have the basic human right to decide whether they can accept a change in the status quo.

As Chen has said before, and former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) before him, that Taiwan is a sovereign state with the "Republic of China" as its official name, there is no need to have a referendum on "independence."

Referendums are a fundamental principle of democracy that allow people to decide on important issues. When the people of East Germany decided to join West Germany, they did it through a referendum. The people of Taiwan deserve no worse than the people of East Germany if they are forced to choose their own destiny. After all, both US President George W. Bush and former president Bill Clinton have reiterated that any peaceful solution to the dispute between China and Taiwan should be acceptable to the people of Taiwan. That is the way democracy should work and that is Chen's thinking.

So why have the foreign media tended to misinterpret or exaggerate stories involving disputes between China and Taiwan? There are at least four factors that cause problems for Taiwan's government.

First, most foreign journalists assigned to report on Taiwan are based in Beijing. They are inclined to read and listen to China's views and how Beijing sees a development in Taiwan. They accept China's terminology and its definition of "Taiwan independence" and "one China" and never question Beijing's claim that Taiwan has been "an inalienable part of China" since ancient times. Filing stories from Beijing, foreign journalists tend to add that China "considers Taiwan as a renegade province" without balancing it by quoting Taiwan's position. They routinely simplify the differences or disputes between China and Taiwan as the "Taiwan problem."

Second, this China-centered mentality means that unless Beijing gets excited and threatens Taiwan with military force, whatever happens in Taiwan is not news. Therefore, foreign journalists tend to read Beijing's mind and exaggerate the seriousness of an event, hoping that their editors will play it up.

Third, whenever there is a piece of breaking news in Taiwan, the most efficient way for Beijing-based foreign journalists to write a story is to call their sources in Taiwan. They may not have, or may not be able to read, the official texts of speeches. And they may not have easy access to official sources. What they can easily reach are opposition leaders, their spokesmen, political pundits and seasoned journalists. However, most of these people live in Taipei. If they are not members of the KMT, they have old ties, or share same ideology, with the KMT. They enjoy criticizing the DPP and Taiwanese presidents, fairly or unfairly. Because of their mindset, they may consciously or subconsciously distort or misinterpret statements made by government officials.

Fourth, some foreign journalists are not familiar with some of the terminology used and its political implications. All three reports I cited either used the term "Taiwan's president" or "President of Taiwan" as Chen's title. No one used the ROC in the stories. Since Chen and Lee use the terms Taiwan and the ROC interchangeably, it is not a problem for them and their followers, most of them Taiwanese. However, KMT stalwarts tend to see Tai-wan as a locality, not as the name of a country. Whenever someone, even Bush, calls Taiwan a country, they cry foul. They prefer the name the ROC, which implies the inclusion of China in its territory. They love fiction more than reality.

Another term that confuses foreign journalists is "one China." The US has a "one China" policy, which means it recognizes only one Chinese government and doesn't support "two Chinas" or Taiwan independence. China has a "one China" principle, which means Taiwan has no other option than to unify with China. Chen and the DPP see it as a "one China" question, which means Taiwan cannot accept it as a precondition for cross-strait dialogue but is willing to discuss it in the dialogue.

Of course, KMT stalwarts are willing to accept the "one China" principle with a free hand to interpret it as the ROC. They believe that challenging the PRC's legitimacy is less provocative than recognizing it. But China would not agree to a free interpretation of "one China." And without a clearly defined territory and population, the ROC would not be able to claim to be a sovereign state.

During the heat of the Cold War, the KMT government abused the "one China" policy to isolate the PRC. The tide has long turned and it is Beijing's turn to use the "one China" policy to isolate and take over Taiwan. So it is easy to see why Chen refuses to accept the "one China" principle and more difficult to understand why the KMT and its followers are willing to accept the "one China" principle to commit Taiwan to political suicide. Hopefully I haven't further confused my American colleagues' understanding of politics in Taiwan.

James Wang is a Washington-based journalist.
This story has been viewed 3863 times.