Taiwan probably has the distinction of being the global leader on the frequency by which it is referred to as being “anti-” something, an underlying bias among journalists and academics that is as unfair to its peaceful constituents as it is to reality.
For years, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which played an instrumental role in the democratization of the country and which is founded on the principle of self-determination, has been plagued by references, usually in foreign media, as an “anti-China” party. No matter what it does, the DPP is portrayed as a political entity that would will China out of existence if it could.
In reality, throughout the years and under various leaders, the party has shown itself amenable to exchanges with China and has engaged in dialogue with Chinese officials on a number of occasions, in both above-board and behind-the-scenes settings. Even under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), whom Beijing reviled as an “extremist” bent on “splitting the motherland,” the DPP made several attempts, especially during its first term, to foster closer relations, so much so that the economic interrelationship in the Taiwan Strait changed dramatically during that period, developments that simply could not have happened had Chen and the DPP been “anti-China.”
The prevailing view within the DPP — and this is not expected to change under its new chairman, Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) — is that Taiwan’s sovereignty and ability to chart its future is essential as the nation navigates the uncharted waters of a closer relationship with China. Rather than being “anti-China,” the DPP is “pro-Taiwan.”
As if such characterization of the DPP were not enough, global media recently applied the same rule to weapons developed by the Taiwanese military, making the Hsiung Feng IIE land-attack cruise missile an “anti-China missile” in their headlines. Beating hearts — and now electronics and explosives — are being depicted as part of an irrational streak, a means to obstruct “rational” individuals who want to interact with China. Oddly, we never hear of the 1,500 ballistic missiles coercively aimed at Taiwan as being “anti-Taiwan.” (Have Israeli missiles ever been “anti-Palestine” or “anti-Iran”? Are Indian rockets “anti-Pakistan” or “anti-China?”)
Nor, for that matter, are the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army, who through their actions and rhetoric have made it amply clear that they would will Taiwan out of existence, depicted in a similarly negative light. China’s missile arsenal, which includes many nuclear warheads, is sufficient to wipe Taiwan off the map many times over; Taiwan has no such means, nor does it seek them.
The unjust rhetoric occurs too often to simply be intellectual laziness. Rather, by dint of repetition and sustained propaganda efforts on Beijing’s part, the bias has become institutionalized. Its main function is to negate Taiwan as a legitimate entity in itself, to turn the people who fight for its existence, and the military apparatus whose principal role is to defend the nation, into undoers rather than doers, which stems directly from Beijing’s contention that Taiwan was, is, and always will be, an intrinsic part of China.
The most recently created sovereign nations, such as Kosovo and East Timor, never faced such injustice in coverage of their fight to emancipate themselves from colonial occupation. Journalists never left any doubt that East Timorese guerrilla leader Xanana Gusmao was a nationalist who was fighting for his country. The same applied to South Africa’s Nelson Mandela or Czech dissident Vaclav Havel. They were for freedom and above all, for their country.
Why, then, should it be any different for Taiwan, whose people are as entitled to self-determination as any others who have successfully attained it?
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