Sneaky ‘news’
My office subscribes to the International Herald Tribune. Inside last Thursday’s edition, I found an inserted supplement, entitled “China Reports.” This eight-page supplement was laid out as a tabloid-size newspaper (its masthead even used the same Gothic font as the Tribune) and its content consisted entirely of articles presented in a typical newspaper manner. However, it was not identified as a supplement to the Tribune as it would have if it had been produced by the Tribune’s business department; indeed, nowhere in the supplement is there any information about the publisher, the authors, or the sources of the stories. It seems to be an unethical, if not illegal, ad.
Worse, the content was a series of professionally written articles, all of which explain how wonderful China is and how it is heading in the right direction, whether in economic development (“Cover Story: Measure for the masses”; “Rising salaries drive firms westward”), travel and culture (“Haunting beauty of Huashan”), etc. In short, it is a remarkably well-crafted piece of propaganda.
The nature of the content, combined with the unwillingness to reveal the producers, indicates this is part and parcel of the larger “united front” strategy against Taiwan, in this case specifically targeting English readers (although perhaps it is also being used elsewhere, since none of the articles in this day’s edition discussed cross-strait relations).
This was the first time I noticed the insert, but it is labeled “Vol. 2, No. 10,” which implies that it is an ongoing effort. I call upon all readers and subscribers of the Tribune to watch for any such inserts and to raise complaints with the Tribune directly or its agent in Taiwan, the Taiwan English Press, to ask them to stop carrying them. One can also write to the Government Information Office to request it to investigate and take punitive actions against those responsible.
Everyone, especially here in Taiwan, must maintain a high level of alertness to such matters, as Beijing develops increasingly sophisticated strategies to manipulate public opinion to achieve its policy goals.
BO TEDARDS
Taipei
Is Su really the right one?
Bruce Jacobs believes the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should nominate former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) as its presidential candidate for next year because of his history of electoral success (“Making the case for Su’s 2012 DPP nomination,” March 27, page 8), administrative skills and support among different demographics, especially swing voters and erudition. Su’s competency, however, has not, and may not conclusively diminish Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) prospects of winning the DPP nomination.
Despite Su’s political experience, the latest surveys show Su just marginally ahead of Tsai. Relative to Su, Tsai has only recently begun her political career. The close competition between Su and Tsai therefore, merely highlights the overall efficacy of her leadership.
As Jacobs notes, “Su is the DPP’s most outstandingly successful electoral politician.” Not surprisingly, various city councilors and legislators support Su through the relationships he has formed over the years.
Yet, Su’s 2008 running mate, former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), does not support his bid. While Hsieh coyly described Su’s bid as “a bit unexpected,” Hsieh perhaps voiced the legitimate concerns of DPP moderates as he continued, “Su should not register.” The contacts Su has accumulated over the years entrenches him firmly within and beholden to ways of governing and thinking that frustrate much of the electorate.
Since becoming a politician in the 1980s, has Su recommended notable policy alternatives to ongoing problems? Has Su demonstrated his willingness to risk personal political capital to campaign for and implement reforms?
During the announcement of his bid for the DPP presidential nomination, Su insisted “Taiwan has been floating in the open sea” and “we need a strong leader during times like this, a helmsman who is of strong will,” but on cross-strait issues, Su also mentioned, “there is no need to advocate new and novel ideas or policies.” Will Su’s lack of innovative ideas transform Taiwan into a country “where everyone has a smile on their face”?
In contrast, as DPP leader, Tsai established think tanks to formulate socioeconomic policy, facilitated the democratization of the party’s nomination process and currently oversees the development of its “10-year guidelines,” effectively improving the DPP from the inside out.
Tsai probably prefers that people say she “can’t scheme and will be unable to live in the complicated political environment” because actually, Tsai expertly maneuvers the political environment. She recognizes that engagement with China a necessity to Taiwan’s growth does not preclude the active promotion of Taiwanese consciousness, and in addition, cross-strait relations do not overshadow the need to address the negative consequences of globalization or reliance on nuclear energy.
Tsai has the support of young voters, academics and centrist DPP politicians appreciative of her leadership. Even ardent independence activist Koo Kwang-ming (辜寬敏) attended Tsai’s announcement, while former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) stopped just short of an endorsement.
Independence activist Su Beng (史明) has also said that “it looks like Tsai is more suited.”
Forgoing forceful rhetoric, Tsai will strengthen national sovereignty and in the long term, may contribute to the viability of Taiwanese independence.
SOPHIA SOLIVIO
Northampton, Massachusetts
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS