On June 10, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chinese Minister of National Defense General Wei Fenghe (魏鳳和) met on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore. The world paid close attention to the outcome of the meeting, as did the media in Taiwan.
However, one confusing aspect of the domestic media’s coverage of the event was how Taiwan’s TV news programs, irrespective of political leaning — and in some cases even on state media — quoted the Chinese version of events.
The meeting between Austin and Wei was conducted in English. The English-language material covering the content of the meeting said that both sides concentrated on the Taiwan issue, but also discussed other issues such as North Korea and the Russian-Ukraine war.
When discussing Taiwan, the US emphasized that it would not allow China to unilaterally alter the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait, and brought up the idea of establishing a crisis communication and crisis management mechanism between the US and China; the Chinese side agreed that this would be desirable.
The reason for setting up a mechanism of this kind is to ensure that official or unofficial channels of communication are established between two hypothetical adversaries in the hopes of preventing conflict.
During the Cold War, the crisis communication channel at the highest level of government was called the “hotline.” When tensions arose, it was used for leaders to obtain confirmation regarding their rival’s intentions.
Yet following the meeting, China issued a statement saying that it the Taiwan issue would be resolved, even if it meant having to “fight at all costs.”
Apparently, there was some miscommunication.
Long-term China watchers are well aware that this is a common method employed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), exploiting the low level of English proficiency among ordinary Chinese.
Regardless of what is said in English about other countries’ version of events internationally, Beijing presents a completely different version in Chinese to serve as domestic propaganda.
There should be some English proficiency at Taiwan’s TV stations and to maintain professionalism, media should report based on the original English transcript, not one that is to be used for Chinese domestic propaganda.
Whether due to laziness or incompetence, TV stations in Taiwan used the wording of the Chinese post-meeting statement, essentially acting as China’s official media and apparently unwittingly transforming themselves into an arm of Beijing’s propaganda machine.
The only station to realize this problem was Formosa TV, which immediately took steps to remedy the situation. The other stations have yet to address it.
For international and English-speaking audiences, China says one thing, while saying another for its domestic audience. Everyone studying Chinese affairs knows this.
Any report should be based on the source material, which in this case was in English, and it was clearly the TV stations basic moral duty to ensure that they did this. Instead, they abandoned their journalistic ethics and professionalism for who knows what reason.
The media in Taiwan should reflect on this and make sure it does not happen again, so that it does not allow itself to unwittingly collude with the CCP.
Tommy Lin is director of Wu Fu Eye Clinic and president of the Formosa Republican Association.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
RSS