Taiwan Can't Be Fooled
At least not by the Christian Science Monitor
by
Bevin Chu
by Bevin Chu
The
Christian Science Monitor Meddles in China's Politics
"The U.S.
major media and much of the minor media are not free and independent,
as they claim. They are not the watchdog of democracy but the
lapdog of the national security state. They help reverse the roles
of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries
and reformers. The first atrocity, the first war crime committed
in any war of aggression by the aggressors is against the truth."
~ Michael Parenti, political scientist
On May 2,
2005, in a thankfully short article entitled "Taiwan Can't Be
Fooled," the Christian Science Monitor told the American
public that:
"The
increasingly rich and well-schooled Taiwanese [emphasis
added] aren't like the mainland's 700 million, little-educated
peasants whom the communist leaders usually manipulate. Yet last
week Beijing treated the people of Taiwan [emphasis
added] like dupes by meddling in their politics in a foolhardy
way... These crude good-cop bad-cop antics by China
[emphasis added] only further Taiwan's [emphasis
added] steady drift away from the mainland in everything but business
ties.
How can one
keep from laughing out loud, when the Christian Science Monitor's
heavy-handed, patronizing spin control so perfectly exemplifies
political scientist Michael Parenti's scathing observation?
How do these
lapdogs of the national security state reverse the roles of victims
and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and
reformers?
They do it
the way the Ministry of Truth did it in George Orwell's dystopian
novel, "1984," by manipulating the language, by playing word games.
Veteran China watchers are wise to their tricks, but let's review
them for the benefit of newcomers.
They persistently
refer to "Taiwan" as if it were the name of a political entity
rather than a geographical region of China, an offshore island
of China.
They persistently
refer to Chinese citizens on Taiwan as "Taiwanese," giving Americans
the false impression they are citizens of an independent nation
of "Taiwan."
They persistently
refer to "China" as if the term applied only to that portion of
China under the control of the PRC regime in Beijing.
They persistently
refer only to mainland Chinese as "Chinese," giving Americans
the false impression they are different from "Taiwanese," rather
than fellow Chinese who reside in different region of China.
On the mainland
side, they contemptuously dismiss 700 million living, breathing,
thinking human beings on the Chinese mainland as mindless ciphers
that "the communist leaders usually manipulate."
On the Taiwan
side, they duplicitously provide as little coverage as possible
to the democratic majority of Pan Blue citizens who are proud
of being Chinese, swear heartfelt allegiance to the Republic of
China, and resolutely oppose Taiwan independence. Invoking the
lapdog media's own words, they "treat the people of Taiwan like
dupes by meddling in their politics in a foolhardy way."
Why do they
do this?
They do not
do this unwittingly. They do not do this innocently.
They do this
maliciously. They do this to mislead the American public into
believing that "Taiwan" is an independent nation rather than an
integral part of China. They do this to persuade the American
public to go along with applying the same "divide and conquer"
strategies against China that were used against Gorbachev's Russia,
Milosevic's Serbia, and any political entity the US government
considers a real or imagined threat to the national security state.
The Christian
Science Monitor continues:
"China
rolled out the red carpet, literally, for a visit by Taiwan's
opposition leader, Lien Chan. He, like China, opposes formal independence
for the island nation and favors eventual reunification. In treating
him as a head of state, [emphasis added]
and even signing an agreement of common objectives with him, China
hopes to isolate Taiwan's current president, Chen Shui-bian,
who talks of officially accepting the reality of an independent
Taiwan. [emphasis added] China's autocrats can't seem
to accept that Taiwan is a democracy in which the people have
voted for Mr. Chen twice, and against Mr. Lien. [emphasis
added] They also must think they can act kindly toward Taiwanese
politicians [emphasis added] they favor while aiming
hundreds of missiles at the island and recently passing a law
that threatens war if Taiwan [emphasis added] moves
toward formal statehood."
Ironically,
Lien Chan is a head of state. Lien Chan is the actual winner of
the March 2004 Presidential Election. Lien is in fact President
Lien of the Republic of China. The only reason he isn't currently
occupying the Office of the ROC President is that unlike Viktor
Yushchenko, who was "Our Man in Kiev," Lien was too proud to be
"Our Man in Taipei," i.e., a willing puppet of the US.
Just before
departing for the South Pacific, Chen Shui-bian, green with envy
at Lien Chan's wildly successful Journey of Peace, told reporters
that "No matter which Taiwan party or individuals China prefers
to talk to, it ultimately has to talk to the leader chosen by
Taiwan people and the government of Taiwan."
I'm sure
the 53% majority of ROC voters who cast their ballots for Lien
Chan on election day 2004 got a good laugh at that, considering
the fact that mainland China, in talking to Lien Chan, was
talking to the leader chosen by the Chinese people on Taiwan
and the government of the Republic of China!
Even more
ironically, ersatz president Chen Shui-bian is at this very moment
considering following in Lien Chan's footsteps. Chen is talking
of officially accepting the reality of One China, traveling to
Beijing, signing an interim peace treaty, thereby ensuring his
place in the Pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.
This is why
Taiwan independence fundamentalist Lee Teng-hui recently held
a press conference during which he complained he hadn't been able
to sleep for days. The editors of the Christian Science Monitor
are way behind the curve. They really need to get a clue. They
need to log on to the internet and check out some websites other
than their own.
Taiwan is
not a democracy. Taiwan is a cronyist dictatorship à la the Philippines
under Marcos, or Indonesia under Suharto, with the external trappings
of a democracy. ROC voters on Taiwan have not "voted for Mr. Chen
twice, and against Mr. Lien."
To see whom
ROC voters on Taiwan actually voted for, see:
The Christian
Science Monitor concludes:
"Lien's
visit, however, did carry some historic symbolism. He's head of
the KMT party, or Nationalists, who lost China to the communists
in 1949 and fled to Taiwan. He's the first KMT leader to return
to the mainland since the civil war ended with Mao Tse-tung's
victory. His party still controls Taiwan's legislature.
[emphasis added] But Beijing wins no point by pretending to
put the civil war memories aside and welcoming Lien as an equal.
He's not Taiwan's duly elected leader. [emphasis
added] Unlike in China, Taiwan's leaders reflect the will of voters,
who prefer that their leaders keep their independence of Beijing's
manipulative ways. China will need to talk to Taiwan's president,
no conditions attached, if it wants to be taken seriously by Taiwanese."
As noted
above, Lien Chan is "Taiwan's duly elected leader," or more precisely,
the Republic of China's duly elected leader.
As noted
above, the shameless pretender squatting in the Presidential Palace
does not "reflect the will of voters."
As noted
above, ROC voters "prefer that their leaders keep their independence
of [Washington's] manipulative ways."
This is why
they prefer that Lien Chan and James Soong, the leaders they actually
voted for and who actually won, conduct peace negotiations with
Beijing based on the well-known "1992 Consensus" of "One China,
Two Interpretations."
For those
unfamiliar with the "1992 Consensus," it stipulates that "There
is only one indivisible China. This China includes both Taiwan
and the mainland. Beijing will refer to this China as the People's
Republic of China. Taipei will refer to this China as the Republic
of China."
Vox Populi,
Vox Dei?
On March
29, 2005, the ERA TV cable channel conducted a public opinion
poll, attempting to gauge the Taiwan public's reaction to Lien
Chan's historic visit. The question asked was:
"Do you
approve or disapprove of proceeding with cross-straits negotiations
on the basis of "One China, Two Interpretations?"
-
An
overwhelming majority of 77% answered "Approve."
-
A mere
11% answered "Disapprove."
-
72%
of Pan Green voters, 67% of Neutral voters, and 92% of Pan Blue
voters answered "Approve."
-
20%
of Pan Green voters, 10% of Neutral voters, and 4% of Pan Blue
voters answered "Disapprove."
-
8%
of Pan Green voters, 23% of Neutral voters, and 4% of Pan Blue
voters answered "Don't know."
ERA TV Poll,
conducted March 29, 2005
Alas, you
would never know any of this from reading the Christian Science
Monitor, because as Michael Parenti noted, "The first atrocity,
the first war crime committed in any war of aggression by the
aggressors is against the truth."
Fortunately
the increasingly rich and well-schooled Chinese people on Taiwan
aren't the little-educated peasants the Monitor thought it could
manipulate. Despite the Monitor's attempt to treat them like dupes
by meddling in their politics in a foolhardy way, the Chinese
people on Taiwan could not be fooled, at least not by the Christian
Science Monitor.
Unfortunately,
these crude antics by media organizations such as the Monitor
only further the Chinese people's increasing alienation from and
disillusionment with the America they once admired.
Bevin
Chu [send him mail] is
an American architect of Chinese descent registered to practice
in Texas. Currently living and working in Taiwan, Chu is the son
of a retired high-ranking diplomat with the ROC (Taiwan) government.
His column, "The Strait Scoop" is published on his website, The
China Desk.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
|
