The war in Iraq dominates the news media in such a way that it is less clear just what is taking place than it would be with less reporting. Television news spends about 95 percent of its time on the war. The larger newspapers expand their coverage in a special separate section in addition to the front page news. All other news has to struggle to be seen. But in the back pages, the number two international news story is a tie between North Korea and the SARS epidemic. China doesn't do well in either of these two, at least in the American press.
These last few months, China's image has changed considerably. It was not very long ago that China seemed hell-bent on being seen as a leader in the international community. Then-president Jiang Zeming (江澤民) made every effort to be seen hobnobbing with world leaders in both bilateral and multilateral settings. That objective was helped by world leaders who saw a China involved in the world community as a desirable development (although there was always doubt about its intentions).
This image remained intact even after Sept. 11. China was contributing to the war on terrorism -- somehow. It has never been made clear exactly how, or how much of this positive attitude by the world community was meant as much to encourage responsible behavior as it was a reflection of China's influence. Then Iraq rose into the public eye. China's image as a world-class power slowly began to change.
For whatever reasons, be it the importance of the American relationship, or its growing dependence on Middle Eastern oil, China positioned itself firmly on the fence. It has voted in the UN Security Council when there was unanimity, but not otherwise, though it does make public statements about the importance of the UN and the evils of war. If China was to be held accountable for what it has said, Taiwan could relax. China would need UN permission to attack Taiwan, and if it attacked without it, would violate its own moral stand as now stated by them. In any event, this kind of neutral grandstanding may be seen by some as clever, but it does not create the image of a world leader.
With the entrance of the North Korean nuclear issue onto the international scene, China's image continues to go south, unless furthering its "great power" image is not still its objective. China has expended a considerable amount of resources helping North Korea maintain its position as a buffer between China and the rest of Northeast Asia. It entered the Korean War for this purpose and lost thousands of young soldiers by doing so -- ordering, as an established tactic, a great many of them to attack straight through their own artillery barrage. This was something I personally witnessed as a young infantry officer during that war.
After the Korean War, China continued to aid the North, including help with the development of missile technologies and nuclear-power capabilities. It was natural, therefore, that when North Korea divulged it had continued its development of nuclear weapons -- despite its agreement not to do so -- that the US turned to Beijing for assistance in coping with the problem. Since then, there has clearly been no change in North Korea's behavior. Why not?
Beijing maintains that it does not have the extent of leverage over North Korea that they are generally thought to have. In any event, we are told, Beijing is working quietly in Pyongyang. The lack of transparency in this process instills doubt. The image of a powerful China pressing a small neighbor to behave doesn't hold water under such circumstances. The image, in fact, is to the contrary.
The image of a rapidly emerging power, bolstered by WTO membership, hosting the APEC meeting, winning the competition to become the site of the 2008 Olympics, among other events, has already been damaged. Now comes the rapid spread of a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), apparently emanating from China. More than either of the events above, the poor handling of this disaster by Beijing not only harms its image, it reveals a fundamental weakness.
In some respects, this is the same weakness demonstrated by Beijing in its quashing of the Falun Gong movement. The Chinese leadership could not accept that a movement of this kind was beyond its control. Similarly, some five months ago, it could not publicly reveal that it knew nothing about the virus and that the problem was therefore beyond its control. The result has been a disaster. Not only have a growing number of people died from the virus, the damage to Hong Kong's economy is still growing and will take a long time to recover. The contagion has spread to other countries and since there is no certainty about how the virus is transmitted, there is uncertainty about how to cope with it.
Taiwan has every right to publicly criticize Beijing for endangering the lives of Taiwan's citizens through blatant mismanagement. It is equally right to criticize the World Health Organization (WHO) for putting politics above its reason for existing. With the possible exception of China, what member country would criticize the WHO for dealing directly with Taiwan at a time of crisis? If there is any bright side to this issue, or to the changing perception of China, it is that after many years of publicly pleading for participation in the WHO, Taiwan might now receive a warmer reception.
There is a broader message as well, however. For people everywhere, and particularly in Taiwan and among the young, there is a lesson about the priorities of differing systems of government when they deal with life-threatening crises such as the SARS outbreak. The authoritarian system found in China puts stability and the leadership's survival as the first priority. A democratic government, such as Taiwan's, puts its people first. Compare the response to the earthquake that hit Taiwan a few years ago. Emergency groups from all over the world were welcomed in to help aid the victims. In China, a contagious and lethal virus was discovered, yet it was hidden from the people and the groups in the wider world that could help. Which government would you rather live under? If China wants to become a prominent player in the world community, it ought to start acting like one.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group.The views expressed in this article are his own.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS