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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS