The game of semantic Scrabble being played out over the National Unification Council has provided a lot of fodder for the cannons of news critics.
So it is with a fairly light heart that I begin the inaugural edition of "NewsWatch," a weekly column in which I hope to seriously irritate the powerful and influential, as well as to royally piss off the bevy of panda-hugging corporate hacks that pass themselves off as reporters and editors these days.
That's a pretty high bar to set for myself, but that's OK: one of the comforts of having lofty ideals is that they are so often unattainable, one never really has to live up to them.
So now to the fun part: Mocking the shoddy work of others.
I have to begin this week with a perennial pet-peeve, the insistence of the international wire services to use the phrase "China and Taiwan split at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949 ..." or some rendition thereof. Reuters, the Associated Press, Agence France Presse (AFP) and Deutsche Presse Agentur have all picked up this supremely sloppy saw, and now throw it in every story that even briefly mentions Taiwan.
For example, from AFP on March 2, in a story slugged "China-Taiwan-UN-Annan," we learn:
"China and Taiwan split in 1949 after the nationalists lost a civil war to the communists and fled to the island. China has since viewed Taiwan as part of its territory to be reunified, by force if necessary."
From Reuters, also on March 2, in a story titled "Interview - Taiwan urges China to talk politics" we have this variation:
"China has considered Taiwan a breakaway province since their split at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949. It has threatened to use force if the island formally declares independence."
Now, I know that every idiot from Flapjack-upon-Tyne or Podunk, USA can't be expected to have a working knowledge of recent East Asian history, and that what's needed is a short, pithy way of boiling down the source of the conflict between China and Taiwan.
But this phrasing simply isn't objective. It leaves readers with the impression that Taiwan was ruled by China without exception since time immemorial. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which was formed after Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895, took control of the island in 1945, and then fled because it had nowhere else to retreat to four years later.
Why not simply leave it at, "China claims Taiwan as part of its territory?" That's accurate, and it sidesteps all the bickering about who was joined with what or who will couple with who at what time in what position.
But enough of that tripe. I'm starting to sound like a letter writer from Ohio. What I really want to talk about is a large mammal with ferocious claws and teeth: the panda bear.
Big Red's kleptocrat-run news agency, Xinhua, tells us on Feb. 27 in an article dubbed "Giant panda couple free gifts for Taiwan" that:
"Presenting a pair of giant pandas to Taiwan compatriots reflected the profound friendship the mainland compatriots have shown to Taiwan compatriots, [Zhuo Rongsheng (卓榕生), some Chinese forestry official] said. We hope that Taiwan authorities concerned would fully consider the earnest hope of Taiwan compatriots and take a cooperative attitude on the issue of the giant panda couple," and so on and so forth in the stilted, nonsensical cant we always get out of China.
Well, this Taiwan compatriot doesn't see anything particularly exciting about stinking pandas. He certainly doesn't see why we should lock the poor things up in a zoo in Taichung, unless we get to lock Mayor Jason Hu (
Why don't we send China a couple of Formosan black bears? They're "solitary animals" that will "usually not attack unless they are threatened," as the Government Information Office's Web site on Taiwan's fauna explains.
I think Beijing has a lesson or two to learn from Taiwan's bears. I say the only way we should let furry-faced Tuan Tuan (
Luckily, we here in Taiwan can count on our fearless leaders to eschew moldy old propaganda-speak and give us plain, unvarnished platitudes. Now-you-see-him, now-you-don't former premier Frank Hsieh (
"My theory is that whatever has happened, is going to happen, or cannot be stopped, is good."
Gee, that's pretty deep Frankie. I wonder if you came up with that as you were floating above the Earth with cult leader charlatan Soong Chi-li (
Heard or read something particularly objectionable about Taiwan? Johnny wants to know: dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com is the place to reach me, with "Dear Johnny" in the subject line.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS