|
|
|
One-third
opt to fight on Dec 24, 2004 Taiwan
Quick Take One-third opt to fight Democracy
means more than just a free press By
Sun Ta-chuan Ever
since Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao rose to power, many are
keeping an eye on how this political duo will govern the ancient and vast
country, now undergoing rapid changes. Chinese intellectuals and media in particular have been trying to test the
new regime's limits in freedom of speech. The Chinese government has never changed the way they treat intellectuals.
Over the past year, the leadership has tried to tighten its grip over freedom of
expression via its national propaganda machine. In March, the general manager of the Guangzhou-based Southern Metropolis
Daily Yu Huafeng and its
editor-in-chief Cheng Yizhong incurred
the wrath of local authorities when they published a report about a man who died
after being beaten in police custody. In September, at China's Fourth Plenum of the 16th Chinese Communist Party
Central Committee, Hu argued that control over public opinion should be
tightened and fallacious ideas should not be propagated. Also, China's Publicity
Department recently launched attacks against the so-called "public
intellectuals" as well as "Neoliberalism." Hong Kong journalists
have described the situation as "China's intellectuals facing another wave
of tightening censorship." What's more, there are an estimated 300,000 cybercops in China blocking
sources of information which the Chinese government deems subversive. Recently, I made a brief visit to Guangzhou. My observation was that
academics and the media are bearing the brunt of criticism from the government,
yet they cannot overlook the changing situation. Based on conversations with people, I realized that younger media workers
all seem to have a sense of passion and mission to be more outspoken and candid.
Their positive attitude indicates a democratization of China. In contrast with the tightening media control taking place in China, the
liberalization of the media in Taiwan is on the other extreme. Fraught with?
sensational, fragmented and exaggerated coverage, the truth is blurred and every
piece of coverage can be erotic. Journalism in Taiwan is commercial and
consumer-oriented. Although Taiwan's media does not have to listen to instructions from Big
Brother and face the Publicity Department's scrutiny, it banks on audience
ratings, and is regulated by the market's rules of supply and demand. While the two countries were established by Han Chinese, it appears that
one side is "free" and the other is "not free." Yet freedom
is not what people are really concerned about. The mighty are fond of deceiving
and the general public are used to being deceived. Some claim that unregulated media and freedom of expression are important
measures of democracy. Judging from the experiences of both nations, this is not
enough. Having only one source of opinion is definitely anti-democratic, but
stirring media hype to make money isn't much better. We need other measures of
democratic development, including religious or moral principals, humanist
introspection, legislation and cultural characteristics. Democracy is a mixture of values, permeating all aspects of life. Democracy
does not exist because someone says it does, or just because everyone has money.
It is fragile and easily destroyed if manipulated. Even Western countries often
deviate from democratic principles for the sake of particular interests.
Democracy is not something we should use to compare ourselves to others with or
to flaunt before them. It is about humbling oneself and exercising
self-restraint. Sun
Ta-chuan is director of the Graduate Institute of Ethnic Development at
Donghua University. Confusion
lingers over US remarks 'FAMILIAR
TERMS': The purpose of Richard Armitage's statement that the US would not
necessarily defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack remains unclear The
Bush administration on Wednesday moved to quell concerns over remarks earlier in
the week by US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage by saying that he had
simply reiterated existing Taiwan policy in different language. But Armitage's statement that the US was not legally bound to defend Taiwan
against a Chinese attack has prompted a frenzied round of speculation among
China watchers and Taiwan supporters in the US capital. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said all Armitage had done was
to "restate US policy in very familiar terms." But Boucher stopped short of saying that US policy toward Taiwan was
unchanged, a normal mantra the department repeats when questioned about comments
made by senior officials that appear inconsistent with administration policy. Meanwhile, China and Taiwan specialists in Washington appear divided on the
implications of Armitage's remarks. During an interview on Monday on the PBS network, Armitage said that the
Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) did not require the US to defend Taiwan in case of
Chinese military action, and that it only committed Washington to sell defensive
arms to Taiwan and maintain sufficient force to deter a Chinese attack. "We are not required to defend," he said. He also stated that the decision to defend Taiwan rests not with the
administration, but with Congress, and said Taiwan was emerging as a
"landmine" in US-China relations, Further, he said, "we all agree that there is but one China, and
Taiwan is part of China." The last remark reminded many observers of Secretary of State Colin
Powell's recent statement that the US supported reunification of Taiwan with
China, a statement Powell later distanced himself from. However, several leading China watchers in the US say that Armitage's
statements simply reflected reality and were a proper reading of the Taiwan
Relations Act. "It is a fact," said Bonnie Glaser, an expert on US-Taiwan-China
relations. "He didn't embellish US policy, he did not misstate US policy. He
stated the facts," Glaser said. "I don't think that this is an attempt to signal China that if Taiwan
takes provocative action and you use force, that the US is not going to come to
Taiwan's defense," she said. For several months, some China specialists have speculated that the Bush
administration has gone back on its earlier firm support of Taiwan, and now
feels that the US is not committed to defend Taiwan against China under all
circumstances. Soon
after taking office, Bush declared in an April 2001 TV interview that his
administration would do "whatever it took" to help defend Taiwan. Editorial:
Beijing threatens to isolate Taiwan Diplomatic
ties between Taiwan and Grenada appears to be extremely rocky these days. Based
on what Grenadian Prime Minister Keith Mitchell said after returning from his
trip to Beijing last week, the only reason that Mitchell has not officially
announced a break in diplomatic ties with Taiwan is either because he is still
working out the details of the financial aid package with China, or that he is
still hoping that Taiwan will "outbid" Beijing. In any event, Taiwan's
Ministry of Foreign Affairs is certainly taking the right stance in refusing to
participate in "The Price is Right" game with Beijing and Grenada. If Grenada chooses to sever ties with Taiwan and enter a relationship with
Beijing, it wouldn't be the first time that Taiwan has suffered such a setback.
Over the years, as China becomes increasingly affluent and thus more able to
offer a "helping hand" to needy countries, it has become increasingly
aggressive in persuading Taiwan's allies to switch diplomatic recognition to
China. While many long-term and faithful friends have remained unmoved by the
temptations, it cannot be denied that Beijing has enjoyed much success. Normally there is no need to get too upset about Taiwan's allies' decisions
to switch recognition, or take it personally. After all, in international
politics, self-interest is the only thing that matters to most countries. That
is the stark reality. Besides, friends and foes easily switch roles at the drop
of a hat. The case of Grenada is a little different. While it is within Grenada's
rights to switch recognition, Mitchell has resorted to tactics resembling
"open extortion." Usually, diplomatic negotiations between Taiwan and
its allies take place in a low-profile manner and behind closed doors. However,
Mitchell has not only made a high-profile trip to Beijing first, but made openly
rude statements, accusing Taiwan of not taking diplomatic relations with the
Caribbean nation seriously. As for his reason for doing so, it's a toss-up between poor negotiation
strategies on the one hand and deliberate efforts to demean Taiwan on the other.
While common sense suggests that the correct answer is the former, in view of
Beijing's past interference, one cannot rule out the possibility of the latter. Experience tells us that Beijing can be highly retaliatory in competition
for diplomatic allies. Each time Taiwan successfully enters a new diplomatic
relationship, Beijing will immediately try to convince another ally of Taiwan's
to switch recognition -- after paying them a hefty sum. The negotiations between
Grenada and Beijing began right at the time when Taiwan and Beijing were still
competing for Vanuatu's recognition. In that race, Vanuatu had decided to revoke its recognition of Taiwan along
with the removal of its prime minister Serge Vohor. In all likelihood, Grenada
was Taiwan's intended punishment in the event that Vanuatu's diplomatic ties
with Taiwan were not revoked. Taiwan has long hoped that this diplomatic race would no longer be
"zero-sum" in nature; it is entirely willing to settle for dual
recognition of Taiwan and Beijing by allies. For example, before Vanuatu revoked
its recognition of Taiwan, Taiwan did not demand that it sever recognition of
Beijing. However, such a dual-recognition model is unacceptable to Beijing. With
Beijing rapidly and aggressively closing in on Taiwan on the diplomatic front,
Taiwan must think of some solution to the problem. Otherwise, diplomatic
isolation may be approaching.
|
|
|
