An interesting article appeared in the Diplomat on Monday. It was entitled “The White Wolf of Taiwan: Zhang Anle and his solution for the cross-strait dilemma” and was written by an assistant professor of Chinese history at a US university.
In Taiwan, the name “White Wolf” is romanized as Chang An-le (張安樂).
Chairman of the China Unification Promotion Party (CUPP), Chang is a former leader of the Bamboo Union gang who lived in China for many years while on Taiwan’s most-wanted list.
The CUPP promotes the idea of immediate cross-strait talks to unify under a “one country, two systems” framework.
The article, which reads like a hagiography of the man, is about sanitizing Chang’s image, while neatly tarring the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and other anti-unification or pro-independence political groups in Taiwan with the same criminal brush. It also introduces an implied threat against anyone who opposes the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) eventual unification agenda.
It wants to return the idea of unification within a positive framework to political discourse in Taiwan — given Beijing’s disillusionment with the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) utility in that regard — in time for next year’s municipal elections.
It also attempts to push back at the idea that China’s much-maligned use of the “one country, two systems” formula in Hong Kong should serve as a cautionary message for Taiwanese.
While much of what the article says about Chang may be true, what it does not say about him, and its mischaracterization of the political situation in Taiwan, sounds like CCP propaganda.
The article describes Chang as a man with a “humble smile, and eloquence on the stage [that] made him seem a college professor” giving the impression of a “perfect elderly gentleman, making way for others and treating women and children with particular courtesy” and whose “knowledge of Chinese history and politics would inspire awe among scholars.” It says he “could have retired as a happy grandfather,” but chose instead to come back to save Taiwan from pro-independence forces.
This characterization might be lost on many Taiwanese who cannot get past his criminal career, or the Sunflower movement supporters who were told by this “perfect elderly gentleman” and “happy grandfather” that “you are all fucking offspring of China, but do not deserve to be Chinese.”
Although it does not deny his criminal past, the article also says his “vision and charisma” gave his former gang “a sense of political mission and a touch of romantic character that no similar organization possesses.”
Really.
When the article is not glossing over Chang’s violent and criminal past, it is attempting to characterize the DPP as a criminal organization, pointing to the alleged underworld connections of certain leading party figures.
It then turns to how Chang’s unique vision is the only thing that will repair social tensions and the frayed relations with Beijing since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) came to power, calling the CUPP one of the only forces sending a positive signal back to “the mainlanders” that they can still work with their “‘Taiwanese compatriots’” for a united China before Beijing “completely gives up on peaceful integration.”
Therein lies the implied threat: Back Chang’s vision or invite Beijing’s wrath.
Finally, the article talks of how Chang believes “voluntary acceptance” of the “one country, two systems” formula would place Taiwan in the most favorable bargaining position and that the formula would, in his opinion, work better in Taiwan than it has worked in Hong Kong.
Thank heavens for that, as many Taiwanese watching the situation in Hong Kong are getting scared.
There are legitimate questions as to why this piece was published — why now? — and who the intended readership is.
We are not living in a “post-truth world,” we are living in a media environment where it is the new normal to read demonstrably skewed propaganda pieces in reputable publications.
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
“Can you tell me where the time and motivation will come from to get students to improve their English proficiency in four years of university?” The teacher’s question — not accusatory, just slightly exasperated — was directed at the panelists at the end of a recent conference on English language learning at Taiwanese universities. Perhaps thankfully for the professors on stage, her question was too big for the five minutes remaining. However, it hung over the venue like an ominous cloud on an otherwise sunny-skies day of research into English as a medium of instruction and the government’s Bilingual Nation 2030
RSS