Tomb-sweeping duties took me out of town last week, but I won't tell you where -- lest the graves of Johnny Neihu's dear ancestors be befouled by some vengeful hack whose work I singled out for ridicule in these pages. Let's just say it was somewhere between Yonghe and points south.
Anyway, the old Neihu family tombs had been swept spick and span, and enough paper money burnt to pollute a small township. There I was, ambling away from the graves, when one of my relatives asked: "What did you think of the Chen-Ma meeting?"
It took all my willpower not to grab my interlocutor by the collar and give a mighty bone-crunching shake. Instead I let out a torrent of invective that soon attracted the attention of nearby holiday-makers. Who freakin' cares about the Chen-Ma meeting?
From the panting media coverage last week, you would have thought Tyson and Holyfield were getting back into the ring. Much was made of the fact the meeting would be broadcast live -- the nation's top two politicians, mano a mano, in a televised smackdown to settle once and for all who was boss in this country. So what actually happened? Two guys in suits met and politely disagreed with each other, while repeating things they say every day.
A live broadcast of paint drying would have made for more exciting TV. How about a live broadcast of milk curdling? Or, Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) reciting poetry?
A law should be passed banning such televised non-events unless 1) they take place inside a steel cage and 2) the participants don Mexican wrestling outfits.
Now wouldn't that make an argument about the "1992 consensus" more interesting?
The strain of reporting a vacuum showed on the wires. They all stressed how "rare" the meeting was -- and let's hope it stays that way.
Here's Agence France Presse:
"Unusual televised talks be-tween the independence-leaning Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and opposition leader Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) have failed to narrow differences on how to deal with China, analysts say."
As long as we're into leaning, why not "unification-leaning" Ma Ying-jeou? "Totalitarian-leaning" Hu Jintao (胡錦濤)? "Insanity-leaning" George W. Bush?
The Associated Press:
"President Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan's main opposition leader stood by their opposing views on a multibillion-dollar US arms package in a rare public meeting Monday that highlighted their differences over relations with rival China."
In other words, not a goddamn thing happened.
The psychics at Deutsche Presse Agentur decided to peer into the future and speculate on the hypothetical emotional reaction of the US and China.
"Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian Monday risked further offending the United States and China by insisting that an advisory body tasked with the island's eventual unification with China no longer exists."
Tomorrow's news, today.
But the prize for creativity goes to Reuters, for this beaut of a lead:
"Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian, grappling with a record-low approval rating, met popular opposition leader Ma Ying-jeou on Monday, but the two failed to find any common ground on the ruling party's bogeyman, China."
Bogeyman? Exactly what is a bogeyman, anyway? Says Websters: it's "an imaginary evil character of supernatural powers, especially a mythical hobgoblin supposed to carry off naughty children." I see what Reuters is getting at: The DPP is inventing the specter of a hostile China to spook Taiwanese. So I suppose Reuters thinks the nearly 800 short-range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan are imaginary. The rapidly expanding attack submarine fleet? Nonexistent. The Russian destroyers with nasty Sunburn anti-ship missiles? Figments.
So much for subtle bias. For the blatant stuff, and more entertainment value, there's the Chinese press. Here's the China Daily:
"Taiwan's pro-`independence' leader Chen Shui-bian yesterday rejected an opposition call for a resumption of talks with the Chinese mainland based on the `1992 consensus' on the one-China principle." Bad Chen, bad. "He also reiterated his determination to forge ahead with the so-called `constitutional re-engineering' project to write a new `constitution' for the island in 2006 and enact the document in 2008."
Pity the poor hacks taxed with plugging in all the quote marks in Chinese "copy" about "Taiwan." Reading such drivel is like witnessing a bad Austin Powers imitation.
Then there's Wu Jiayin at the Shanghai Daily, who didn't take kindly to Taiwan's rejection of China's panda offer -- as evidenced by this headline, "Panda `goodwill gesture' undermined by petty politics." I see the propaganda writers are making progress with alliteration, but the delusional logic still needs work.
Says Wu: "It's known to every-one that all Chinese people across the Taiwan Straits [sic] support reunification between the mainland and the island."
Sorry Wu, but according to the latest survey from National Chengchi University's Election Study Center, just 2.1 percent of Taiwanese back immediate unification, with about 12 percent more supporting eventual unification and the "status quo" for now. Oh, I get it: Wu must have meant to write "all people who aren't subhuman splittists."
Then Wu waxes ethnic: "One does not need a couple of pandas to prove the same blood that runs in the veins of every Chinese."
Ah, how true. It puts me in mind of ... who was that great Chinese thinker who said, "People of the same blood should be in the same China?"
Oops, that should be "Reich," not "China" and it's from Mein Kampf, 1924. How do you say Blut und Boden in Chinese?
And then this: "Pandas are just a sign of the good will [sic] that the mainland people feel towards those living in Taiwan Province."
I'm sorry, I must have forgotten to drink my Chicom Koolaid this morning: Did Wu say "Taiwan Province?" Taiwan may not have been governed by the People's Republic of China for a single day, but no need to let reality get in the way of some good old Han nationalist hyperventilation. But what do you expect from a piece of "analysis" in the Chinese "media"?
Heard or read something particularly objectionable about Taiwan? Johnny wants to know: dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com is the place to reach me, with "Dear Johnny" in the subject line.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations