Reporting by international wire agencies on Taiwan is often nuanced in a way that backs Beijing’s claims, even if inadvertently. This can mislead readers about everything from the reasons for tension between Taiwan and China to basic facts about Taiwanese and Chinese history — and there are no signs that sloppy reporting will end any time soon.
Careless wording in wire reports can lend credence to Beijing’s portrayal of Taiwan as a “renegade province.” Although a reporter may sidestep the word “country” to avoid taking a stance on Taiwan’s status, alternative phrasing may instead suggest that Taiwan is part of China. Frequent references in wire articles to China as “the mainland” and Taiwan simply as “the island” do just that.
An Associated Press (AP) report on Monday offers an example that is hardly limited to that agency. The report on the Strait Forum in Xiamen, China, said “mainland purchasing groups” would travel to Taiwan to buy agricultural products and mentioned “President Ma Ying-jeou’s [馬英九] policy of allowing more investment by mainland Chinese in the island.”
That wording suits Beijing. While the term “mainland” is appropriate to denote China in the context of Hong Kong and Macau, in an article on cross-strait relations it is misleading. More than geographical proximity, it implies a political link similar to that between China and its two former European colonies.
Wire reports also often contain straightforward and recurring factual errors. The same AP report recycles the claim that “China and Taiwan split amid civil war in 1949,” which also appears in an Agence France-Presse (AFP) article that same day. Read in combination with the terms “mainland” and “island,” the risk of misleading readers is considerable.
This error reduces the historical gap between Taiwan and China, suggesting the two were unified until 1949. That is a version of events that Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have both insisted on and that can be dismissed as propaganda. Coming from international media, however, the effect is disconcerting. Independent media enjoy added credibility by virtue of their neutrality on cross-strait developments, but unfortunately what they are reporting in these instances is wrong in fact.
As news agencies often reuse these snippets as inserts, their inaccuracy is all the more unacceptable. Agencies need only get the background information right once, then draw upon it as needed.
Just as disturbing in the AFP report is its unqualified citation of a poll conducted by the KMT-friendly, Chinese-language China Times as showing that “a record number of Taiwanese believe traditional rival China is friendly.”
As a backdrop to this, AFP explains: “Relations between Taiwan and China, which split in 1949 at the end of a civil war, hit rock bottom due to the pro-independence rhetoric of Ma’s DPP predecessor [former president] Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁].”
This has the effect of sweeping under the carpet decades of aggression during which the KMT’s goal was to “retake the mainland” and Beijing’s was to “liberate” Taiwan through force. The blame for cross-strait tension is placed squarely on the shoulders of a president who never advocated aggression. This suits Beijing, which branded Chen a provocateur.
Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) may have claimed to rule all of China for decades at the UN, and China may have bombarded Kinmen in 1954, but AFP suggests Chen’s presidency was the nadir of cross-strait relations. Such reports may be laughable to informed readers but others have no cause to doubt them. Professional journalists are obliged to avoid such nonsense.
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