Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators Joanna Lei (
The broadside came after the American Forces Press Service, a US Department of Defense publication, ran stories on its Web site last weekend on the DPP's planned plebiscite -- for entering the UN as "Taiwan" -- as an "independence" referendum.
If either had bothered to read to the end of the paragraph then they could have saved their breath. In their attempts to highlight the reference to the KMT's dreaded "independence," they failed to notice -- or deliberately overlooked -- the very end of the same sentence, where the author paraphrased US President George W. Bush as referring to Taiwan as an "island nation."
A strange choice of words, this, considering it has been just a few weeks since Dennis Wilder, a top Bush adviser and senior director for East Asian affairs at the National Security Council, stated categorically that the US does not view Taiwan (or the Republic of China) as a state.
Nevertheless, Taiwan's representatives in the US immediately contacted their Washington counterparts for clarification and, as if by magic, the offending references were promptly corrected the following day by the Pentagon, which conceded that the original wording was "inaccurate."
Thus the true culprit in this instance was revealed: careless reporting.
As anyone involved in journalism is aware, reporting on cross-strait affairs can be a minefield. It is a forum where adding a stray "re" to the front of "unification" can mean trouble.
Yet time and again we see the same erroneous and sensational reporting on Taiwan-China affairs. It is easy to lose count of the number of times one sees the phrase: "The US is obligated to come to Taiwan's aid in the event of a Chinese invasion" or variations on this theme in international wire copy, despite the fact that it is incorrect.
Those with limited knowledge of nuances and terminology used in cross-strait affairs can get into all kinds of trouble with just one or two inaccurate words or phrases.
Jim Garamone, the offender in this case, is an experienced reporter who, according to his online biography, has covered defense issues since 1976. Whether he has had much experience in reporting on cross-strait affairs is not clear. But one thing is for sure: Garamone has had a week to remember the fallout from this minor fuss -- and a crash course in Cross-Strait Terminology 101 to boot. It is quite safe to say that he will not make the same mistakes again.
This highlights the pressure that reporters who work for responsible news organizations must endure. Their work is held up to the highest standards of scrutiny, and any incorrect information or falsehoods are liable to have serious consequences and are usually immediately brought to light.
Unfortunately, Taiwanese reporters and politicians are not subject to the same stringent standards as their US counterparts. While Garamone's errors were quickly highlighted and changed, the same cannot be said about the KMT legislators who used this "inaccurate" report to make political capital.
So far there have been no reports of Lei and Shuai holding a press conference to retract their comments and even apologize. But why should we expect contrition? Their mission to undermine a democratic referendum process and turn public opinion against the government has been accomplished and for that they make no apology.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS