A media interview can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it gives politicians a chance to explain their views; on the other hand, it can sometimes backfire and have the opposite effect. President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) interview with Reuters on Thursday has turned out to be an example of the latter.
This was not due to any mistake by Tsai; instead, it was Reuters’ doing. There was nothing inappropriate or wrong in Tsai’s responses to the reporters’ questions. Always cautious, Tsai gave appropriate and concrete answers to their questions. She was forthcoming and direct, and displayed the views and bearing becoming of a president.
She was not overbearing on the issue of relations between Taiwan, the US and China, and she gave voice to a Taiwanese identity without deliberately fawning on either the US or China. In short, her behavior was presidential and praiseworthy.
The problem was the reporters’ hypothetical line of questioning.
For example, the reporters asked Tsai: “Will you hold further conversations with [US] President [Donald] Trump? Are you expecting to?”
“We are of course hoping that we will have the opportunity to communicate directly with the US government at critical moments and on critical issues, and do not rule out the opportunity for another telephone conversation with President Trump himself, but this will be dependent on the overall situation and on the US government’s concerns when it comes to handling the affairs of this region,” Tsai said.
This is both a balanced and relevant answer.
However, the headline Reuters gave the report was: “Exclusive: Taiwan president says phone call with Trump can take place again,” and a Reuters reporter immediately asked Trump if he would call Tsai again.
Trump, unaware of the interview with Tsai, brushed the question aside and said that he was addressing the North Korea issue with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), and that he did not want to irritate Beijing with any other issues.
Trump’s response was reasonable: North Korea is the issue that the US most urgently needs to resolve and it needs China’s help to do so.
Another question posed by Reuters was: “Will you directly rule out purchasing F-35 jets?”
“Our military purchases will be directed by our defense strategy needs, and we don’t rule out any item that would be meaningful to our strategy. The F-35 is indeed one such item,” Tsai said.
A Reuters reporter directly asked Trump whether the US would sell F-35s to Taiwan, since Taiwan wants to buy them. Trump said that he had not been notified, that he needed to think about it and that he had to confer with his team.
Reuters’ handling of the report gave the impression that Tsai had suggested that a second telephone conversation with Trump should be organized, and that Trump had rejected the suggestion. However, the Chinese transcript of the interview on the Presidential Office’s Web site shows that Tsai only responded to the Reuters reporter’s question by saying that it would depend on the US government’s considerations, and that there were currently no such plans on either side.
The purchase of F-35 jets is also a hypothetical issue that lacks any substance.
Reuters had a great opportunity to interview Tsai, and several important issues were discussed during the interview. Too bad that all the good points have been drowned out by the furor over two non-issues.
Small wonder, then, that Reuters officials have told the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that they “feel embarrassed” over the whole issue.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS