EDITORIAL: The stigma
that never goes away
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 (³¯¤ô«ó), 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 ¡X and this is not expected to change under
its new chairman, Su Tseng-chang (Ĭs©÷) ¡X 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 ¡X and now electronics and explosives ¡X 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?
|