Taiwan probably has the distinction of being the global leader on the frequency by which it is referred to as being “anti-” something, an underlying bias among journalists and academics that is as unfair to its peaceful constituents as it is to reality.
For years, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which played an instrumental role in the democratization of the country and which is founded on the principle of self-determination, has been plagued by references, usually in foreign media, as an “anti-China” party. No matter what it does, the DPP is portrayed as a political entity that would will China out of existence if it could.
In reality, throughout the years and under various leaders, the party has shown itself amenable to exchanges with China and has engaged in dialogue with Chinese officials on a number of occasions, in both above-board and behind-the-scenes settings. Even under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), whom Beijing reviled as an “extremist” bent on “splitting the motherland,” the DPP made several attempts, especially during its first term, to foster closer relations, so much so that the economic interrelationship in the Taiwan Strait changed dramatically during that period, developments that simply could not have happened had Chen and the DPP been “anti-China.”
The prevailing view within the DPP — and this is not expected to change under its new chairman, Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) — is that Taiwan’s sovereignty and ability to chart its future is essential as the nation navigates the uncharted waters of a closer relationship with China. Rather than being “anti-China,” the DPP is “pro-Taiwan.”
As if such characterization of the DPP were not enough, global media recently applied the same rule to weapons developed by the Taiwanese military, making the Hsiung Feng IIE land-attack cruise missile an “anti-China missile” in their headlines. Beating hearts — and now electronics and explosives — are being depicted as part of an irrational streak, a means to obstruct “rational” individuals who want to interact with China. Oddly, we never hear of the 1,500 ballistic missiles coercively aimed at Taiwan as being “anti-Taiwan.” (Have Israeli missiles ever been “anti-Palestine” or “anti-Iran”? Are Indian rockets “anti-Pakistan” or “anti-China?”)
Nor, for that matter, are the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army, who through their actions and rhetoric have made it amply clear that they would will Taiwan out of existence, depicted in a similarly negative light. China’s missile arsenal, which includes many nuclear warheads, is sufficient to wipe Taiwan off the map many times over; Taiwan has no such means, nor does it seek them.
The unjust rhetoric occurs too often to simply be intellectual laziness. Rather, by dint of repetition and sustained propaganda efforts on Beijing’s part, the bias has become institutionalized. Its main function is to negate Taiwan as a legitimate entity in itself, to turn the people who fight for its existence, and the military apparatus whose principal role is to defend the nation, into undoers rather than doers, which stems directly from Beijing’s contention that Taiwan was, is, and always will be, an intrinsic part of China.
The most recently created sovereign nations, such as Kosovo and East Timor, never faced such injustice in coverage of their fight to emancipate themselves from colonial occupation. Journalists never left any doubt that East Timorese guerrilla leader Xanana Gusmao was a nationalist who was fighting for his country. The same applied to South Africa’s Nelson Mandela or Czech dissident Vaclav Havel. They were for freedom and above all, for their country.
Why, then, should it be any different for Taiwan, whose people are as entitled to self-determination as any others who have successfully attained it?
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