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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS