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
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