Sneaky ‘news’
My office subscribes to the International Herald Tribune. Inside last Thursday’s edition, I found an inserted supplement, entitled “China Reports.” This eight-page supplement was laid out as a tabloid-size newspaper (its masthead even used the same Gothic font as the Tribune) and its content consisted entirely of articles presented in a typical newspaper manner. However, it was not identified as a supplement to the Tribune as it would have if it had been produced by the Tribune’s business department; indeed, nowhere in the supplement is there any information about the publisher, the authors, or the sources of the stories. It seems to be an unethical, if not illegal, ad.
Worse, the content was a series of professionally written articles, all of which explain how wonderful China is and how it is heading in the right direction, whether in economic development (“Cover Story: Measure for the masses”; “Rising salaries drive firms westward”), travel and culture (“Haunting beauty of Huashan”), etc. In short, it is a remarkably well-crafted piece of propaganda.
The nature of the content, combined with the unwillingness to reveal the producers, indicates this is part and parcel of the larger “united front” strategy against Taiwan, in this case specifically targeting English readers (although perhaps it is also being used elsewhere, since none of the articles in this day’s edition discussed cross-strait relations).
This was the first time I noticed the insert, but it is labeled “Vol. 2, No. 10,” which implies that it is an ongoing effort. I call upon all readers and subscribers of the Tribune to watch for any such inserts and to raise complaints with the Tribune directly or its agent in Taiwan, the Taiwan English Press, to ask them to stop carrying them. One can also write to the Government Information Office to request it to investigate and take punitive actions against those responsible.
Everyone, especially here in Taiwan, must maintain a high level of alertness to such matters, as Beijing develops increasingly sophisticated strategies to manipulate public opinion to achieve its policy goals.
BO TEDARDS
Taipei
Is Su really the right one?
Bruce Jacobs believes the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should nominate former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) as its presidential candidate for next year because of his history of electoral success (“Making the case for Su’s 2012 DPP nomination,” March 27, page 8), administrative skills and support among different demographics, especially swing voters and erudition. Su’s competency, however, has not, and may not conclusively diminish Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) prospects of winning the DPP nomination.
Despite Su’s political experience, the latest surveys show Su just marginally ahead of Tsai. Relative to Su, Tsai has only recently begun her political career. The close competition between Su and Tsai therefore, merely highlights the overall efficacy of her leadership.
As Jacobs notes, “Su is the DPP’s most outstandingly successful electoral politician.” Not surprisingly, various city councilors and legislators support Su through the relationships he has formed over the years.
Yet, Su’s 2008 running mate, former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), does not support his bid. While Hsieh coyly described Su’s bid as “a bit unexpected,” Hsieh perhaps voiced the legitimate concerns of DPP moderates as he continued, “Su should not register.” The contacts Su has accumulated over the years entrenches him firmly within and beholden to ways of governing and thinking that frustrate much of the electorate.
Since becoming a politician in the 1980s, has Su recommended notable policy alternatives to ongoing problems? Has Su demonstrated his willingness to risk personal political capital to campaign for and implement reforms?
During the announcement of his bid for the DPP presidential nomination, Su insisted “Taiwan has been floating in the open sea” and “we need a strong leader during times like this, a helmsman who is of strong will,” but on cross-strait issues, Su also mentioned, “there is no need to advocate new and novel ideas or policies.” Will Su’s lack of innovative ideas transform Taiwan into a country “where everyone has a smile on their face”?
In contrast, as DPP leader, Tsai established think tanks to formulate socioeconomic policy, facilitated the democratization of the party’s nomination process and currently oversees the development of its “10-year guidelines,” effectively improving the DPP from the inside out.
Tsai probably prefers that people say she “can’t scheme and will be unable to live in the complicated political environment” because actually, Tsai expertly maneuvers the political environment. She recognizes that engagement with China a necessity to Taiwan’s growth does not preclude the active promotion of Taiwanese consciousness, and in addition, cross-strait relations do not overshadow the need to address the negative consequences of globalization or reliance on nuclear energy.
Tsai has the support of young voters, academics and centrist DPP politicians appreciative of her leadership. Even ardent independence activist Koo Kwang-ming (辜寬敏) attended Tsai’s announcement, while former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) stopped just short of an endorsement.
Independence activist Su Beng (史明) has also said that “it looks like Tsai is more suited.”
Forgoing forceful rhetoric, Tsai will strengthen national sovereignty and in the long term, may contribute to the viability of Taiwanese independence.
SOPHIA SOLIVIO
Northampton, Massachusetts
US president-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday named US Representative Mike Waltz, a vocal supporter of arms sales to Taiwan who has called China an “existential threat,” as his national security advisor, and on Thursday named US Senator Marco Rubio, founding member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China — a global, cross-party alliance to address the challenges that China poses to the rules-based order — as his secretary of state. Trump’s appointments, including US Representative Elise Stefanik as US ambassador to the UN, who has been a strong supporter of Taiwan in the US Congress, and Robert Lighthizer as US trade
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
RSS