Every missile pointed at my house proves that Kishore Mahbubani is wrong.

I read Kishore Mahbubani's genocide denialist, anti-Taiwan garbage so you don't have to.

Before I start, I just want to note that the author of the piece that just defiled my eyes is also the author of a book titled -- and I am not shitting you -- Can Asians Think? 

My husband picked it up at a used bookstore and hated it (because, duh), and the guy before him had scribbled a single word on one of the pages: wanker.

I never finished it to find out if Asians could, indeed, think, because who needs a book to answer a question like that? However, I can now honestly say that while Asians can think, Singaporean wanker Kishore Mahbubani is not exactly the greatest example of this.

Anyway, let's get started.

I was planning to take a week or two off blogging because I've been so busy with online teacher training, but this article in the National Interest is just begging to have some feces flung at it, so here we are I guess. 

I've waded through the whole thing so if you care about Taiwan, East Turkestan, Hong Kong, Tibet or any part of Asia outside of China and also want to keep your blood pressure in check, you don't have to.

If President Joe Biden were to propose to China an economic deal that would benefit the American economy (and American workers) and also benefit China, China would enthusiastically embrace such a deal.

Probably, but Mahbubani implies it might actually a good idea to propose such a deal, with a country that is actively committing genocide and threatening America's strategic partners, like Taiwan. I would consider such a deal to be akin to agreeing to work with the Nazis.

Second, China is not a threat to American security. China isn’t threatening a military invasion of America (and its armed forces are an ocean away); or a nuclear strike on America (with its nuclear warheads being one-fifteenth the size of America’s). China is also not threatening American military supremacy in regions like the Middle East. Indeed, China isn’t even the enemy of American defense budgets.

It's interesting that he mentions the Middle East, but leaves out the Pacific. By actively threatening Taiwan, salami-slicing the South China Sea (pissing off Vietnam and the Philippines), fighting with India, claiming the Senkakus and eyeing the Ryukyus, supporting the Myanmar junta, China absolutely is shuffling closer to a move toward dominance in the Pacific and the rest of Asia. The US might not do much about Myanmar, but they do care about that island chain. Either Mahbubani doesn't realize this, or he does and is deliberately omitting it. 

If Haines is right in saying that China is a threat to America’s security, the logical conclusion would be that China would be happy to see a reduction in America’s defense budget, America’s aircraft carriers, jet fighters, naval bases. Actually, China would be unhappy. Chinese strategic planners are absolutely thrilled that America is wasting so much money fighting unnecessary wars as well as maintaining a huge and bloated defense budget that weakens America’s competitive edge in more critical areas, like education and research and development.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of the US's massive defense budget. Friends have said it's necessary to maintain sufficient military supremacy to, say, protect Taiwan. I'm not a military analyst, I don't know, but ideologically speaking I don't care for it. However, Mahbubani is wrong. 

Mostly China is happy the US fights unnecessary wars because they offer a convenient palette with which to paint the Taiwan situation, making it look like the US standing against a potential invasion would be just another "unnecessary war" that we'd be better off staying out of.

Finally, Haines says that China is a threat to American “values across a range of issues.” This statement would be true if China were either threatening to export its ideology to America or threatening to undermine the electoral process in America. Neither is happening.

Have you asked any Chinese, Uighur, Tibetan or Hong Konger in the US whose families in China have been threatened (which also happens in other countries) if they believe that's true? Any of those groups, or any Taiwanese who's had to fight to have their issues platformed on university campuses with Confucius Institutes? Have you asked any of the airlines who changed their designations of Taiwan/Taipei to "China" at China's behest? Because I bet you they'd say the attempt to import CCP values to the US is very obviously a thing. 

The first misconception is that since China is run by a communist party, it must, like the former Soviet Union, be on a campaign to prove that communism is superior to democracy....Yet Americans also believe in empirical evidence. That evidence shows that China has stopped supporting fellow communist parties for decades.

That's because China isn't communist (neither am I, so don't come at me). Of course the CCP, despite its name, doesn't care about exporting communism. It cares about exporting the values of acknowledging China's global supremacy. This is easier to do if a country is, in fact, a dictatorship, but that's not a prerequisite.

If you think they are not trying to export CCP values, however, you are wrong. It hasn't hit America yet, but it's happening elsewhere.

I'm not pissed at China because they're "trying to export communism". I doubt it would work if they were. I'm pissed at China because they have fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

China’s real mission is to rejuvenate Chinese civilization, not waste time exporting communist ideology. 

It's really interesting that he chose to use these words. It's the exact phrase -- "rejuvenate Chinese civilization" -- that the CCP tends to approve of in translation. Anyone paying half a bit of attention knows what "rejuvenate Chinese civilization" means: destroy Uighur and Tibetan culture. Force authoritarianism on Hong Kong. Invade and subjugate Taiwan. Basically, do a lot of shitty things to a lot of people who either do not want them, do not consider themselves Chinese, or both. Do you support this, Kishore? Really? The violent subjugation of millions? 真的？

Plus, rejuvenate from what? Their own fuck-ups from about 1945 on? Because the "century of humiliation" was a long time ago (despite how frequently the Chinese government brings it up). There's more to rejuvenate from thanks to the Great Leap Forward than the Opium Wars.

If they're indeed still trying to "rejuvenate" from the late 180os, or even the domestic postwar mess they themselves created, doesn't that indicate that the CCP has failed rather than succeeded?

The second misconception is that when China becomes the number one economic power in the world, replacing America, it will, like America, go on a universalizing mission and export the Chinese “model,” just as America exported the American “model.” Here’s a perfect example of America’s total ignorance of its adversary. The most basic fact that Americans should know about the Chinese people is that they do not believe that anybody can be a Chinese in the way that Americans believe that anybody can be an American. The Chinese believe, quite simply, that only Chinese can be Chinese. And they would be puzzled if anybody else tried to become Chinese.

Two things. First, one need not "be Chinese" to import "the Chinese model", this is a non-sequitur. They seem quite happy to support a similar model in Myanmar, without ever thinking the people crushed by the junta are Chinese. 

Second, while it's true that by and large "Chineseness" is not an identity one can just take on the way one can immigrate to America and be "American", the CCP does have an objective of assimilation. Tibetans and Uighurs aren't Chinese under the most commonly understood construct of "Chineseness", and I don't think either group considers itself Chinese, but the CCP sure does seem eager to crush and assimiliate them -- to the point of literal genocide. 

And they are quite eager to insist that anyone they say is Chinese...is. This extends to millions of citizens of foreign countries who are, say, Swedish or Australian. They'll even abduct them on foreign soil, as they did with Swedish citizen Gui Minhai in Thailand.

They double down on Taiwanese being Chinese, even though the vast majority Taiwanese don't identify that way. So it sure does look from my Taipei apartment that China does think that people who are not Chinese can be -- must be -- Chinese. 

Actually, if the truth be told, Beijing doesn’t give a fig whether a country is a democracy or autocracy. It only cares whether it can work effectively with a given country. 

It sure does seem to care that Taiwan remains a democracy, Kishore. And doesn't seem keen to work with it so much as subjugate it.

Hence, if the birthplace of Western democracy, Greece, decides to join the Belt and Road Initiative and welcome Chinese investment in its Port of Piraeus, China doesn’t care whether Greece is a democracy or not.

It's interesting that you mention Greece -- far away -- but ignore Taiwan. And CCP support of the junta in Myanmar. And although it's technically part of China, the desire for democracy among Hong Kongers. Are you unaware that China is deeply unpopular across Asia, among its own neighbors? 

You might call yourself a "friend of America" earlier in the piece, but you are no friend of Asia.

Step three would be to reverse all the steps that the Trump administration took in the trade war with China. Why reverse them? They didn’t weaken the Chinese economy. Indeed, they may have damaged America’s economy instead.

They probably did damage America's economy more than China's, but we don't actually know that because there's no such thing as wholly reliable data from China. Besides, why would you want to work with a country that commits genocide? (I realize the US does just that with other countries, and even aids them -- including aiding the pummeling of Yemen and the Israeli treatment of Palestine, but ideally it wouldn't do so anywhere.)

 

Step four would be to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement which former President Barack Obama had wisely initiated to ensure that the East Asian economic ecosystem, the largest one in the world, would not be centered on China. Step five would be to match the Chinese punch-for-punch by signing free trade agreements with every country or region that China has signed with. For example, one important arena for U.S.-China competition will be Southeast Asia, where there are still major reservoirs of goodwill towards America among its 700 million people. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) matters. In 2000, Japan’s combined gross national product was eight times larger than ASEAN’s combined GDP. By 2019, it was only 1.6 times larger. By 2030, ASEAN’s economy will be bigger than Japan’s. Hence, America should immediately sign a free trade agreement with ASEAN.

I'm including this because it's the first paragraph in a long string of garbage that I actually sort of agree with.  I don't think "free trade" is necessarily a fix for everything, but neither do I demonize it (as I said, I'm not a communist). It would be smart for the US to strengthen ties with the parts of Asia that are not China, period. Whether free trade is the best vehicle for this is a spin-off discussion of that.

But, is it not super weird that he completely ignores Taiwan, the country that would benefit most from stronger ties with the US? 

This is, probably, the most important point that American strategic planners should reflect on: at the end of the day, the outcome of the geopolitical contest between America and China will not be determined by the number of aircraft carriers or nuclear weapons. Instead, it will be determined by which society is doing a better job at taking care of its bottom fifty percent. As of now, China is leading by a mile....

Um...is it though?

Instead of tripping over myself to talk about why I don't think this is true, here's a tweet from an economist I think has the right of this issue:

There are plenty of countries in the world that do a better job at taking care of the poor, the working class, and the middle class than America does.

China is not one of those countries.

— Noah Smith 🐇 (@Noahpinion) July 31, 2021

I'll also add that while poorly regulated capitalism put America's bottom fifty percent where they are, that Chinese state control of the economy (not quite communism -- state capitalism) is what dragged most of China into poverty, and far worse poverty at that. Should we give the CCP a medal for attempting -- badly -- to pull people out of poverty that they themselves put into poverty?

There are four parts to this critical piece of advice: a country that knows what it wants (1), coping successfully with its internal problems (2) and global responsibilities (3), and which has a spiritual vitality (4). Vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, America was ahead on all four counts. Today, vis-à-vis China, America is behind on all four counts.

Look, America doesn't have much of a moral high ground. It's been awhile since we committed all-out genocide on our own land, although we have done so. We've not exactly been a moral compass on genocides abroad, to put it lightly.

But how can you look at the genocide of the Uighurs and threats to subjugate Taiwan and support for the mass repression and death in Myanmar, and call that "spiritual vitality", "dealing successfully with internal problems" and "global responsibility"? 

The government actively encourages their own people to say it's fine to massacre all Taiwanese as long as they take the island. Does that sound spiritually vital or globally responsible to you? They solve "internal problems" through gulags. Does that sound like a good method?

If so, what the everloving fuck is wrong with you?

Yet, Biden would be crucified politically if he were to lift trade sanctions against China that have harmed American businesses and farmers. The Biden administration will need strong political cover if it wants to rebalance relations with China and strive to achieve a more normal relationship with China, devoid of self-defeating tariffs and sanctions.

Okay, but why would you want to rebalance relations with a country that commits literal genocide and is threatening to invade and subjugate another important strategic partner?

Kennan’s wise advice, stated above, also emphasized that America should be mindful of the impression that America creates “among the peoples of the world.”

Right. So we should stand against genocide and subjugation. Meaning we should not be kind to China. That would be a good impression to make. One I could get behind.

America can now use the same empirical test to see whether the “peoples of the world” support America over China. Unfortunately, unlike the Soviet Union, China has not invaded or occupied any neighboring state.

You think the use of present perfect saves you, Kishore, but it doesn't. Your use of "complex" to weasel your way out of any sort of moral accountability for your stance signals what we're about to read.

Also, the world doesn't quite favor China as much as you want to make it seem.

Regardless, I'd like to say hello from Taipei, where I am pissed at China because they are threatening to invade the country I call home, a neighboring state. They have missiles pointed at my house. They want to massacre my friends. Does Taiwan not exist to you? Is it too inconvenient for your argument? Apparently so:

Nonetheless, America has accused China of behaving “aggressively” in three territories: Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Taiwan. The issues involved in each of the three are different. Indeed, they are complex. However, most American commentaries make a simple black and white case that China’s actions in these three territories are wrong and, as a result, the “world” disapproves of China’s actions in these areas.

First, Taiwan is not a territory of the PRC. So now we know where you stand -- you are a filthy subjugationist. You honestly think a military invasion of Taiwan would be acceptable?

Fuck you, Kishore. Just...fuck you. I don't have better words. 

Fuck you. 凸

Second, I'm writing this as I'm reading it, but I hope to any gods in heaven that he is not about to launch into a defense of the genocide of the Uighurs or subjugation of Hong Kong.

Let's find out together! 

Whenever any American uses the phrase which suggests the “world disapproves of China,” they should say privately to themselves this phrase: “1.5 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, 1.4 billion Africans, 600 million Latin Americans, 500 million Buddhists (or the vast majority of the world’s population) disapproves of China’s actions. By using this phrase, instead of “the world,” they would see clearly that they have made an empirically false statement. Most countries in the world do not support American criticisms of China in either Hong Kong or Xinjiang. As indicated above, there is an empirically verifiable way for America to determine whether the “world” supports American criticism of China’s actions in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, or Taiwan. America could table a resolution on any of three issues in the UN General Assembly. If it were to do so, America would find itself in the same situation as the Soviet Union in the Cold War. It would struggle to get thirty to forty countries out of 193 countries to support its point of view.

First, oh my god, you actually are weinering your way out of denouncing actual literal genocide in Xinjiang, repression in Hong Kong and an invasion of Taiwan by both-sidesing the issue, as if these things are acceptable if most of the world is willing to turn a blind eye. Seriously, fuck you.

I thought you were saying that the US should  be mindful of the "impression" it creates.

Doesn't that logically mean it should create the impression that it won't stand for genocide just because other countries are willing to ignore it? I know we haven't got a solid track record here, but it's high time we changed that, rather than adding to our past misdeeds.

Besides, the governments of those countries in the UN aren't willing to stand against these horrors not because they're not morally wrong, but because of all that fat Chinese investment in their countries. It's equivocation to say that the world is turning to China for financial reasons, but then that China's actions are not necessarily morally wrong because the world won't vote in the UN to say they are, when that is precisely because of those financial incentives. They are not the same thing, and you know they're not.

As for the people, most people who don't care about these things either live very far away and are preoccupied with their own issues; this is human nature. Others are simply unaware. But let's not substitute the actions of governments represented in the UN for beliefs of people. They don't exactly map, and you know that. 

Plus, I can think of one country that is not in the UN that should be. I live there, and China has its fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house. But you seem to think it would be fine for China to massacre this country's citizens the way it massacres its own. 

In theory, if China was suppressing its Muslims, the most outraged community would be the fifty-seven countries that are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

So you really are engaging in genocide denial. Great. You're also a filthy genocide denier. There is something so absolutely slimy and disgusting about implying a genocide doesn't exist if an insufficient number of people oppose it.

I note that Mahbubani doesn't go into any of the actual evidence that there is indeed a genocide. Of course he doesn't, that would destroy his argument that China is a normal nation just trying to help its people, not engaging in crimes against humanity. Rather, he dismisses it as probably not real because the world isn't doing enough to stop it. 

That is not an argument. If you think it is, go back to school.

Besides, I don't think you have to be Muslim to stand against the genocide of Muslims.

Yet not one Muslim country supported America or the West on Xinjiang. In response to the statement by the twenty-three countries condemning China, fifty-four countries backed a counter-statement defending China’s actions in Xinjiang.

Did we not just discuss China throwing fat stacks around the world? The Muslim world has been a big beneficiary of all this cash (well, the wealthiest have been, the debt traps tend to screw everyone else), but that just makes China as bad as the US on ethical foreign policy. It doesn't mean that the genocide isn't real. Just because the rest of Africa didn't do anything about the genocide in Rwanda in the '90s doesn't mean it didn't happen. Please stop conflating money and morals, and please stop pretending that genocide can be ethically acceptable if enough people are willing to turn a blind eye to it.

Let me show you what this argument actually is: until 1941 the US was -- or claimed to be -- uninterested in getting involved in the war in Europe. Newspapers in the 1930s had praised or defended Hitler for quite some time before that. By Mahbubani's logic, the Holocaust was therefore morally acceptable until the very moment the world decided it was not, and in fact it could be argued was not happening until the world realized it was. You could argue that the Armenian genocide didn't happen because nobody did much to stop it. Come on. Even infants have more object permanence than this absolute trashfire of a case. 

The real issue here is not the merits of the case on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. The real issue is the stark difference between America’s standing in the world vis-à-vis its primary competitor in the Cold War, namely the Soviet Union, and its standing in the world vis-à-vis China. 

Why do I suspect you're only saying that because you know that on the merits of these issues, you lose?

Most countries want to have good relations with America. Yet most countries also want to have good relations with China. Hence, if any American administration, driven by domestic political pressures, steps up its geopolitical contest with China, it will find itself relatively isolated internationally. Few countries would enthusiastically support America in this contest.

Trying to keep yourself at an academic remove from essentially greenlighting genocide and the invasion and subjugation of a democracy is not a good look, Kishore. 

It's becoming clearer, in fact, that more countries are seeing the ethical impossibility of dealing with the CCP. From the investment deal with Europe tanking to Japanese officials finally saying that Taiwan mattered to them, to everyone else who stands to lose if Taiwan falls, I actually do think the US could find allies in this if the situation became desperate. 

And who would make it that desperate? China.

Bet you won't say that, though. 

The European countries, especially France and Germany, are among America’s closest allies. Yet they too will be ambivalent about joining any American crusade against China, even though they share some American concerns about China’s behavior.

There's truth in that, but you keep trying to tie it to some argument that therefore we shouldn't do anything for Taiwan, Hong Kong or Xinjiang. That these actions on the part of the CCP are acceptable because they've essentially bribed the world into not caring. Or that if most of the world doesn't care, it's okay to simply pretend something is not morally wrong. 

I would not have wanted you around in the late 1930s, because you probably would have been on Team Appeasement.

If geopolitics is also about geography, China’s investment in Africa is a geopolitical gift to Europe as it reduces African migration to Europe. An old adage says that one should not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Wait, why would it bad to have more Africans in Europe? I'd say Europe might benefit from more open immigration policies. What are you implying?

Besides, Chinese investment in Africa isn't all rosy, and don't you yourself call for "nuanced understandings"? Shouldn't this be one of them? I'm all for international cooperation and investment and assistance to marginalized groups and nations, and I admit the West doesn't have the best track record of offering aid with good terms attached. But the answer to that isn't to just let China offer even worse terms. It's to offer better ones.

Iran also demonstrates how China plays a long-term game of chess (or more accurately, the Chinese game of wei qi) while America plays checkers. 

Okay, but that -- and a lot of the "the Chinese think" language in this piece -- sure feels Orientalizing. From an Asian. Weird. 

Indeed, exactly fifty years ago, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger visited China. He raised many issues with Chinese premier Zhou Enlai. Zhou Enlai only raised one: Taiwan. Why? Americans have forgotten the century of humiliation China suffered from 1842 to 1949. The Chinese haven’t.

They might, if the CCP didn't keep bringing it up. And why do they keep bringing it up? Because it suits their political agenda. 

Also, if Henry Kissinger did something regarding China, you can be reasonably sure it was the wrong move.

The separation of Taiwan from the homeland represents the last living legacy of this century of humiliation. 

Only because the CCP says it does.

And you don't seem to care what the Taiwanese think. Do their opinions about their own country matter to you at all, Kishore?

The PRC has never ruled Taiwan and this "separation" is of a country that was joined, under another government and not all that strongly, for about 4 years. Before that, Taiwan was a colony of Japan, and before that, a colony of an entirely different Chinese government. For most of those centuries, only about a third of it was actually controlled by Qing colonizers. Regardless, the transition from empire to aspiring (though failing) democracy to state capitalist dictatorship does matter. This "inalienable part of China" line of thinking is a fabricated one, tailored to suit the CCP's political agenda.

You seem to have bought the line that Taiwan is inalienably part of China. Do you even care that most Taiwanese haven't? Why do China's views on Taiwan matter more than Taiwanese views about their own country?

Hence, it would be foolhardy for any Chinese leader not to work out extreme options if America walks away any further from the One China policy. China will look for a suitable “Achilles’ heel” in America. As I document in my book, Has China Won? The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy, the role of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency is one area of vulnerability. This issue is complicated. Yet there’s no doubt that America’s standing in the world will fall sharply if the U.S. dollar loses its global reserve currency status.

Again with the academic remove to obscure the fact that you are essentially endorsing wiping a thriving democracy that does not want to be a part of China and will face mass persecution and massacre (yes, massacre) off the map. 

It would also be foolhardy for China to invade Taiwan, but you don't seem too concerned about how unwise a move it would be.

God, you're worse than Kissinger and I still cannot wait until that eldritch horror exits this world.

Many Americans will not be daunted by this prospect. Since many Americans tend to have a black and white view of the world, where they believe they represent right over wrong, or good over evil, they will console themselves by saying that America is carrying out a noble global mission of defending freedom, democracy, and human rights against an evil, authoritarian, despotic regime, which is oppressing its own people. 

Sure, okay, but in this case there actually is a right and a wrong. In this case, despite the "complexity" of the issues, the ethical path actually is clear. 

To pretend it's not and mock those who say it is is, again, to hide behind both-sidesist garbage.

In any case I am "not daunted by" the prospect of fighting for what's right not because my view of the world is black and white, but because China has fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

This brief representation may seem to be a caricature of American views. However, it’s not unfair in suggesting that many Americans, including thoughtful Americans, have a black and white view of the relationships between America and China.

No. 

I have a black and white view of the fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

 

It will not be long before China becomes equally stigmatized as another “evil empire.”

It already is an "evil empire". It's not wrong to call a thing by its name.

It is committing atrocities across multiple territories, most of which it has no supportable claim to (East Turkestan and Tibet should not be part of China) and is threatening to invade the democracy next door.  By advising that we ignore this, you are advising that we continue America's own ethical void.

Yet most countries in the world just see China for what it is: a normal country.

"Normal countries" do not commit genocide and threaten to invade their neighbors, you absolute turnip.

 

Americans may wish to dismiss these growing signals of respect for China just as opportunistic moves by countries that just want to benefit from the Chinese economy.

Yes. That's pretty much what it is. We're talking about governments here, not people, and governments can be swayed just as easily by morally-void money stacks, if not more so.

Before falling into a smug attitude of moral superiority, Americans should consider the possibility that the rest of the world is capable of arriving at a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of China.

It's not moral superiority. I want them to remove their fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

Anyway, the word "nuanced" (along with "complex" and "rejuvenate" and "national humiliation") is another keyword showing someone's drunk Xi Jinping's juice.

How about this instead: it's possible to have a nuanced understanding of China as a place, set of interrelated cultures, people and history, but see in very stark terms that the CCP is in fact evil, and it's not "jejune" to point this out.

Or this: any "nuanced" understanding of the situation requires also understanding the Taiwanese perspective, among others such as Uighur, Hong Konger and Tibetan perspectives. Namely, that Taiwan is self-governing, does not want to be a part of China, and it is wrong to invade neighboring states. If you call for "nuance" but all you offer is CCP talking points, then the one lacking that nuance is you.

Yet, even as China has become more powerful, it continues to embrace the Western-originated, rules-based order generated by the UN Charter and the UN family of institutions. Anyone who doubts this should read the UN Charter again. Its principles support China.

China is on the Security Council. Of course its principles support China. The UN's "principles" include being utterly useless, and turning a blind eye to invasion, apartheid and genocide. The UN should not be the basis for your ethical code, ever. 

And it has not embraced the "rules-based order" so much as tried to use it to its advantage by keeping Taiwan out.

Equally importantly, China is creating a stable and well-ordered society that is significantly improving the lives of 1.4 billion people.

I don't think the ones in jail in Hong Kong or in death camps in East Turkestan have had their lives improved. But they're inconvenient to your argument so once again you ignore them.

A peer-reviewed, credible academic study done by the Harvard Kennedy School has documented and explained how support for the Chinese government has gone up from 86 percent in 2003 to 93 percent in 2016.

I've read the study and while I'll admit it has a veneer of credibility and is peer-reviewed, that doesn't change the fact that real political research can't actually be done in China. What Chinese citizen would tell a bunch of foreign researchers what they really think of their government?

Besides, a few generations of government control of messaging all the way through school is likely to achieve such results. How and whether one can actually have and express an opinion is transmitted to new generations very differently in China -- for political reasons, not cultural ones. That the operation has likely been successful does not give the government moral cover. 

And it doesn't remove the fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house. 

President Xi Jinping is a man of few words.

Yeah, and most of them seem to be defending genocide and subjugation. You seem okay with that.

I hope he becomes a man of zero words, as soon as possible. 

“China does not, first, export revolution; second, export poverty and hunger; third, cause troubles for you.”

Unless you're Taiwanese (or caught in a BRI debt trap).

 

Most countries in the world would agree with the spirit of Xi’s statement.

Sure, but he intends to do all of those things to Taiwan. Maybe listen to Taiwan, where people know the cake is a lie?

As long as China takes care of its people and doesn’t disrupt the world order...

And dismantle the fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house, perhaps?

...the rest of the world will be able to get along with China.

I'd rather they stood with Taiwan and against, you know, genocide.

Truly, this article is so bad -- from the slimiest kind of genocide denial to the outright dismissal of any sort of Taiwanese perspective -- that if I ever have to read anything like it again I might have a fucking stroke. 

Don't buy into manufactured outrage about "Taiwan independence"

We sit on your claws and we laugh.

A few days ago, White House coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs Kurt Campbell was asked how much "love" (for Taiwan) was "too much love" in an extremely leading question from the Asia Policy Institute (at about the 50:00 mark).  

Campbell said he was going to speak carefully about it due to the "sensitivities" involved (the sensitivities being almost entirely on the Chinese side, along with their KMT puppets), but then...didn't speak carefully. In the context of a fairly strong answer that was more of a challenge to Beijing than a rebuke to Taiwan, he dropped that the US supports a "strong unofficial relationship" with Taiwan but does "not support Taiwan independence". 

The rest of this answer is worth examining and we will get to that, but first I want to note how the KMT as well as some media outlets -- both Chinese state propaganda and real journalists -- pounced on "does not support Taiwan independence". KMT chair Johnny Chiang used this as an opportunity to say that "Taiwan independence is a path that leads nowhere" and blamed "increased tensions" between Taiwan and China on the Tsai administration, rather than China.

Quoted at length because Focus Taiwan makes its material inaccessible after a few months:

Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), chairman of Taiwan's main opposition Kuomintang (KMT), said Wednesday it is not feasible for Taiwan to seek independence, as it would be a futile effort.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government should recognize that the pursuit of Taiwan independence is a "path that leads to nowhere," Chiang said in a Facebook post, citing an American official's comments on the subject earlier this week....

With regard to cross-Taiwan Strait relations, Chiang said the DPP government should try to resume dialogue with Beijing, which has suspended official contact with Taiwan since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the independence-leaning DPP took office in 2016.

Chiang said that because of the Tsai administration's policies, tensions have increased between Taipei and Beijing, resulting in regional instability.

This sounds like blaming sexual assault on "what she was wearing" rather than the actual perpetrator, or telling an abused spouse that they "must have done something to make him so angry". Which is not surprising, coming from a party that has still not fully atoned for brutalizing Taiwan for decades.

I know Johnny needs to show that his half-assed leadership of the KMT is in fact him using his whole ass, but these remarks are literally just a repetition of the CCP's position. If he is trying to convince anyone that the KMT is anything other than the pro-China party whose main platform seems to be forcing Chinese identity on Taiwan and doing Beijing's bidding, he's failing. In fact, I suspect his spirit has been broken for awhile. 

In other words, Chinese state media and the KMT reacted to this as though "does not support independence" was another way of saying "supports unification", which of course is not the case. 

I don't know what Campbell's intention was in making that remark, but my best guess is that he wanted to clarify that the US isn't intending to extend diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, while still warning China against aggression and supporting Taiwan's right not to be subjugated by China. If I'm right, he did not word it very well, but it's simply a continuation of current US policy, not a newsworthy change.

(This is not to say I agree with the policy: I would like to see full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan as Taiwan. That, however, is another issue.)

The international media jumped on it as well, with Nikkei Asia posting a mostly-reasonable article with a clickbait headline: 

The article itself mentions China's increasingly aggressive tactics in the context of Asia as a whole and that Campbell also stressed Taiwan's right to "live in peace", but leaves out key components of that same quote: that any move by China to destabilize that peace would be "catastrophic", and that other allies such as Japan were also worried about China's increased aggression and destabilization tactics. 

As such, it sounded more like the Asia Nikkei writer was cribbing South China Morning Post (a de facto CCP propaganda outlet) or the Global Times (a de jure CCP propaganda outlet) than writing real news.

As the Tsai administration has not actually shown any intention of declaring de jure independence this is a warning to China, not Taiwan, but you wouldn't know that from reading this article or listening to the KMT. 

Fortunately, other news outlets such as The Guardian and The Independent got it right:

Still others didn't seem to report on it at all (these are the only major media outlets I can find which covered the story, all others seem to be Taiwan-based or Chinese state media). 

However, the decontextualized pull-quote stirred up a "US doesn't support Taiwan" frenzy in Taiwan and China, making it sound like the US supports Taiwan not being independent. This is -- as with my last post -- exactly how disinformation works. A nugget of something real is blown up or twisted into something not quite right, then that is twisted into the most incendiary form possible. That very straw man doesn't need much of a spark to start a massive blaze turns into "the news" and people believe it like it's true.

But, again, think about it logically: Taiwan is already independent. Independence is not some future thing that one can support or oppose. It's the fact of what Taiwan is, right now. Does Canada need to declare independence? Argentina? Botswana? No. So why would Taiwan?

In fact, Tsai has already said it: "Taiwan is an independent country, and its name is the Republic of China." Every element of this is true: Taiwan is independent, it meets all the criteria to be a country, and as of this moment, its official name is the Republic of China.

Did China attack at that statement? No. Did the US pull their support? No -- they've strengthened it. So how could the US "not support independence"? 

So what is it that the US opposes exactly -- the fact of Taiwanese independence (clearly not true as they still maintain unofficial ties and sell Taiwan weapons), or a formal declaration of it? Clearly the latter.

Given the fact that Taiwan is already a sovereign state separate from the government almost everyone recognizes as China, in the context of the rest of Campbell's comments and US policy generally, what he clearly meant is that the US does not support Taiwan declaring that fact formally (Tsai's words a year or so ago weren't a formal declaration of anything).

It was poorly worded, but at its core it was a reiteration of what US policy has been for awhile: to support Taiwan's de facto independence while cautioning it against declaring de jure independence. And the DPP seems to be in agreement that this need not happen for Taiwan to, well, simply be independent which it already is.

So why is this news? It's not on the DPP's agenda, but the CCP and KMT are making it sound like it is.

The Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated this following Campbell's remarks and the 么八吵 screeching that ensued from the KMT and CCP: 

“ROC Taiwan is a sovereign nation, not part of the PRC; that is a fact as well as the ‘status quo,’” she said.

The government has been cautiously handling cross-strait relations based on a steady and practical attitude, while defending its liberal democracy and striving for more opportunities to participate in international affairs, Ou said.

Basically, it's a big fat nothingburger. 

Soon after, the US clarified its stance, reaffirming that it emphasizes peace in the Taiwan Strait, and that the warning is to China. 

Quoted at length yet again:

The U.S. State Department on Wednesday reiterated that the use of force by any party to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait will be a "profound mistake."

In a news briefing, Ned Price, the State Department spokesman, cited U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken as saying: "It would be a profound mistake by any party to try and remake that status quo with the use of force."

He did not mention China, but the statement was seen as a veiled message aimed at Beijing. China has said it wants peaceful reunification, but it has not renounced the use of force to reunify, and has threatened to crush attempts to achieve formal independence for Taiwan or interference by foreign countries.

Price's remarks were made after Kurt Campbell, the U.S. White House coordinator for the Indo-Pacific, said earlier this week that any Chinese move against Taiwan will be catastrophic and the Biden administration is sending a clear message of deterrence against China's aggression.

In other words, nothing has changed. 

How could it be anything other than a warning to China, not Taiwan? Taiwan does want peace. It wants to peacefully exist as the country it already is, and it would even be preferable, if possible, to have good relations with China on a nation-to-nation basis. That is, for China to stop threatening war and respect Taiwan. The Tsai administration has been clear on this since the beginning.

So when Johnny "But I'm using my whole ass!" Chiang tries to re-frame it as some sort of warning to the DPP, he's showing the KMT's true colors: marionettes that dance to the CCP's tune. In fact, the Global Times even praised Chiang's response (yes, I linked it, but you don't need to click). 

And that's just it: Taiwan doesn't need to declare independence! There is literally nothing to see here!

This has been the Tsai administration's strategy for awhile: ensuring Taiwan's current sovereignty and dignity as it governs itself apart from China, and ignoring the manufactured problem of whether Taiwan needs a formal declaration of what is already the case. Fundamentally, this is a pro-independence strategy. 

US support for Taiwan is not dangerous. Taiwan's continued independence is not dangerous. You know what is dangerous?

Assuming that every Taiwan independence supporter believes a "declaration" of independence is necessary, and absent it, one must not "support independence". That makes "independence" sound like some sort of extreme position that could "start a war" (it won't be -- China will be the one to start the war), rather than a simple recognition of what is true, and the mainstream consensus in Taiwan: that Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, not Chinese, and that they want to keep the sovereignty that they already have. 

In fact, asserting this -- independence for Taiwan must mean a provocative formal declaration -- amounts to taking one's cues from CCP propaganda. It serves to sideline, not support, independence. 

It's not just KMTers and Chinese state media that do this. Older DPPers buy into it as well, which sets a bad precedent (and also implies, at least to me, that Chen-era heavyweights and New Tide faction members should not and cannot be the party's future). 

From those zealous archivers, Focus Taiwan:

Taiwan has to face the reality that the decision on whether to officially declare independence cannot be made by Taiwanese alone given the possible reaction of China and United States opposition, ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) said Sunday....

However, Chou also said the ultimate policy goal for the DPP is to push for Taiwan independence and the goal is clearly stated in the party charter....

Nevertheless, Chiou stressed that "now is not an appropriate time" to declare Taiwan independence.

Can we please just not consider people like Chiou to be the thought leaders on what it means for Taiwan to be independent? 

Again, Taiwanese independence exists now. It does not need to be declared. Nobody with any real power is considering a formal declaration; in fact, nobody in power seems to think it is necessary (which, again, it is not).

So it does not matter if "now is an appropriate time". Nobody who really matters was discussing whether it was. Why is Chiou helping the KMT and CCP in building this absolutely massive straw man, implying Tsai is considering moves that she clearly isn't, and that the US doesn't support these non-existent moves?

Of course, Taiwan not only needs to maintain its current independence from China. It also needs to shed the ROC colonial structure that binds it, which can be considered another form of "independence". Someday, when it is more possible to do so, Taiwan would do well to shed ROC identity, amend the constitution and change the name and flag of the country. That time need not be now. 

However, when people think of "Taiwanese independence", most don't think of freedom from the ROC. They think of separate governance from the PRC. When those who aren't well-versed in Taiwanese affairs hear that the US is "against" independence, or it is implied that independence must somehow be declared, as though Taiwan is already under some sort of PRC governance and "independence" would change that, it's easy to classify Taiwan as somehow "separatist" -- a word with a mostly negative connotation in the international media -- when that is simply not the case. 

So please, let's all just stop. Let's stop pretending independence from the PRC is not a reality. Let's stop pretending that independence requires a formal declaration. Let's stop pretending it is an extreme or fringe viewpoint. The current status quo is Taiwan's sovereignty from the PRC, period. It is pretty mainstream. It's only sensitive because China makes it sensitive. It's not scary, or dangerous.

Treating it any other way is playing the CCP's game, confusing the world about whether Taiwan is a part of their China or not (it's not).

Let's also stop confusing the issues of independence from the PRC (already a fact) with shedding the ROC colonial structure (yet to be achieved, but not the same as "independence" as it is most practically defined.)

And let's stop pretending even peaceful unification with China is possible under any circumstances. It is not.

It creates inflammatory media cycles that never needed to happen, and only confuse international readers more. 

To put it another way: Taiwan independence won't cause tensions to magically be enrisen-ified. Taiwan is already independent.

Deal with it.

China won't be "provoked" into a war with Taiwan -- it will start a war when it wants to

It may be precarious, but that doesn't mean we should be afraid.

This is an evergreen area of Taiwan discourse, but I'm bringing it up now in relation to the recent visit of three US Senators to Taiwan. As with every move on the part of Taiwan to create good relations and engender statements (or actions that make a statement) showing support for Taiwan, there are always people who respond: but that might provoke China! It might trigger a war! Your moves are so raw, I've got to let you know that China might attack Taiwan over them!

This is false. 

It is false because China decides when it is provoked. This is not some reflexive action, like a doctor hitting your knee with a rubber mallet. Have any of these "moves" that could "provoke China" actually done so? I don't see any bombs falling and they seem to be preparing for war at roughly the same rate they have for awhile, so no.

China called the senators' visit "a provocation", but do you see warships sailing over? I don't. Is this likely to be the spark that starts a war? No. 

The CCP made those choices: to slowly and steadily prepare for war, but not be "provoked" into starting one by this or that action in support of Taiwan. 

If China wants to start a war with Taiwan, it will do so because it wants to start a war with Taiwan. It will not be because some US senators visited Taiwan, or Japan sent some vaccines, or the US flag was flown at AIT, or Taiwan changed its passport design. 

To say these moves might "provoke" China is like saying a person "provokes" sexual assault based on what they were wearing, how much they were drinking, what party they were at or what they said or did, No. A sexual predator commits a crime because they decided to commit the crime. Their victim could have worn a baggy t-shirt and consumed only ginger ale. It doesn't matter. Their attacker was not "provoked".  They made a choice. 

You might also think of it as an abusive situation. People in abusive relationships sometimes think that if they tailor their actions a certain way, it might stop or lessen the abuse. This might appear to work on a surface level -- "if I don't wear this shirt that he thinks attracts attention, he won't beat me", "if I do what Aunt Lydia says, she won't cut out my tongue" -- but the abusive dynamic remains. 

The abuser will still abuse when they want to, because they want to, not because they were provoked. If they need an excuse they'll pick one of any potential "provocations", or simply invent one. 

And if you keep tailoring your actions to appease your abuser, then the abuser will continue to lay out more and more 'red lines' which, when crossed, 'provoke' them into abusing you. They control you now, and the abusive dynamic remains. 

If every decision made by Taiwan and its supporters is carefully tailored not to "provoke China", the CCP will simply keep setting stricter parameters of what will "provoke" them until Taiwan is so obedient that might as well be a territory of the People's Republic. And that is indeed the plan. This is intentional. And even if Taiwan and its supporters restrict their actions more and more to appease China, it will still attack whenever it wants to, because it wants to. 

Like a rapist, or an abuser.

The only thing stopping China isn't adhering to the correct moves on our side. It's China's own internal decision-making about whether it's ready for a war or not. That's it. 

China will attack Taiwan when it wants to attack Taiwan. It doesn't matter what Taiwan, the US, Japan or any country does or doesn't do before that time. You can't control their actions by changing yours, just like you can't keep an abuser at bay or end an abusive dynamic by giving in to the abuser's demands.

So send the vaccines. Send the senators. Sail the aircraft carrier. Sell Taiwan weapons. Hell, give Taiwan weapons. Fly whatever flag you want. Sign agreements. Help Taiwan participate in international organizations. Call the de facto Taiwan embassies -- and de facto foreign embassies in Taiwan -- whatever you please.

In fact, please keep it up: if the CCP is going to invade whenever it feels ready, Taiwan will need the support.

And China will only start a war over any one of them if it was already intending to start a war regardless. Even if you don't do these things, it will start that conflict whenever it wants anyway. It'll find an excuse. 

This brings me to another point: I've disagreed recently with those who say China isn't close to attacking Taiwan. In fact, I think China is very much intending to attack Taiwan, though I don't know when. Foreign Minister Joseph Wu seems to agree with me.

I do agree, however, that the hyperbolic language around every single move being one that could "provoke China" serves China. I just won't take that to the conclusion that China isn't going to start a war. It probably is, but neither Taiwan nor any other country will be the ones that "provoked" it. 

I haven't changed my view that complacency -- oh, they're not close to starting a war, we don't need to worry about this -- serves China's purpose just as much as histrionics about every single action being a "provocation", when the entire "provocation" model is built on a lie. It's just that these two views are not mutually exclusive. 

So stop it with the "moves likely to anger China", or "in a move that might provoke China". I know it's mind-blowing to indulge in the notion that China has free will, but it does.

Instead, US and Japan, how about you slide over here, and give us a moment. 

Those moves are so raw, after all. I've got to let you know. You're one of our kind.

Introducing Terry Gou, China's vaccine gamepiece

Are those claws real? Does it matter, if the purpose is the show?

I really didn't want to write about vaccines even one more time, but it feels somehow necessary. Sigh.

You've probably heard the news that Terry Gou -- Foxconn billionaire and guy who called Taiwan independence supporters "garbage" -- has applied to the Taiwan FDA to import 5 million doses of BNT. More accurately, a New Taipei-based biomedical firm is the official applicant, Gou's role is basically to write the check and talk to the press. Notably, Shanghai Fosun is not a part of this deal (perhaps there are some fees paid to waive distribution rights). 

Health Minister Chen Shih-chung has confirmed that the application is under review, but apparently the original authorization letter from BioNTech (BNT) does not seem to be included. From my understanding, that letter is essentially the proof that BNT is going to deliver what it says it will -- BNT doses imported straight from Germany.

I'll be quite interested to see how that story develops in the coming days. As it stands now, it seems clear that without that document, the planned purchase and distribution cannot go through. (If it doesn't, however, prepare to hear Gou scream about it and blame "the DPP" for the paper he doesn't have). 

One could say that Terry Gou might have been able to get around Shanghai Fosun by paying them off, and perhaps this is true. However, the government refusing to pay those fees was not the reason given for BNT's contract with the Taiwanese government falling through. Unless the Tsai government and Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) are both telling some massive lies to the public, the reason was related to the use of the word "country" (and then "Taiwan") in the contract.

So, Shanghai Fosun -- whose owners certainly have close ties to the CCP -- is willing to step aside for Terry Gou, but not the Taiwanese government? Why?

Here's the best explanation I can provide: essentially, it's all politics on China's part, where they've set up a game that it will be very hard for Taiwan to win.

How does the game work?

First, China blocks the Taiwan government’s negotiations with BNT. Then China claims ”only” Shanghai Fosun has the right to sell BNT to Taiwan. Taiwan rejects this “offer” as Shanghai Fosun never applied for distribution approval in Taiwan. 

Then Terry Gou submits the application that Fosun couldn't be bothered to attempt. Terry says the vaccines will come straight from Germany — not through Shanghai Fosun.

Suddenly Shanghai Fosun’s inalienable “rights” to the Taiwan market no longer seem to matter. Which means they were never the reason why Taiwan's own negotiations were abruptly cut off even after a contract had been agreed upon.

This time, nobody in China, the media or the pan-blue camp claim Gou is “circumventing” Fosun or “trying to obtain independence through vaccines”, even though he is doing exactly what the Taiwanese government tried to do earlier (which, again, was completely acceptable).

China wants the DPP to look bad, so they won’t stand in the way of pro-China Terry Gou (remember just whom he called "garbage"!) obtaining these doses.

As there are some questions about this authorization letter, it is unclear to me if BNT has actually agreed to sell him the vaccines or not. There are also a few other lingering questions. If China is refusing to let Taiwan access vaccines because Taiwan insists on doing so without abrogating its sovereignty, how will China react if these BNT doses are approved in Taiwan without the Chinese government's involvement? (Remember, BNT is still not approved in China proper, only Hong Kong and Macau).

The MOHW will still have to go through quite a bit of documentation to obtain these 'donated' vaccines -- what name will they use for Taiwan? If their use of "Taiwan", "Republic of China" or "country" stops the deal dead, will China, the KMT and Gou scream "politics!" at the DPP? (Yes.) 

If the original authorization letter is required before this can go through, will Gou and the KMT still scream "politics"? (Yes.) 

It's also not clear to me if BNT is actually approved for use in Taiwan yet. If it isn't, that will have to happen. Approval for emergency use is possible, but in those cases typically the government itself assumes legal liability if any problems arise. If Gou donates the vaccines through this biomedical firm, how does the legal liability for that work? If that's the reason they are rejected, will these same parties scream "politics"? (Yes.) 

Therefore, if Gou doesn’t secure the vaccines, he can blame the DPP. This looks good for both the KMT and China.

If he does secure them, the government looks bad: incompetent, unable to get this done themselves, when the truth is China blocked their attempt to do exactly what Gou is doing now. The media will have a field day, and nobody will stop to think that these 5 million vaccines were specifically intended to embarrass the government. I say this without making a value judgment on whether we should or shouldn't import them (although I absolutely would refuse one, and I willingly took AZ). 

In either scenario, China wins. The KMT looks good. The current government looks bad. If this is a game, China is winning. Again, I say this with no value judgment on whether 5 million German-made BNT doses in Taiwan would be a good thing. Of course, if they came with no political strings, they would be. But they do come with political strings which are worth interrogating.

It also hands another victory to China: whether the vaccines actually get here or not, the CCP is sending a message. Cooperate with us. Call independence "garbage". Be pro-China. If you do, and are willing to play by our rules, we'll clear the path to life-saving vaccines for you. If you don't, then we'll put you in as many chokeholds as possible. So you'd better vote for the party we prefer, got it?

In other words, nice countr---er, province you got there, Taiwan. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.

Through it all, China pulls the levers. And perhaps this helps Gou with plans for a 2024 presidential run, a race the KMT could conceivably win despite their China stance being deeply unpopular.

So they are playing politics with vaccines, while accusing the DPP of exactly what they are doing. That's usually their strategy, to be honest. It's easy to see through once you know how it works.

(If I'm missing anything in this rundown of exactly what's going on, please feel free to comment in the spirit of sharing information. Troll comments, however, will not be accepted.)

I won't end with a fist-pump and reassurance that Taiwan will win this game. Right now, if this is Monopoly, China has too many properties. But there is some reason to hope. 

First, the government is responding with dignity, truly the only way that they can -- by not turning their noses up at these doses, and even taking Gou's calls to show they're not obstructing the process. From the Focus Taiwan link above:

In response, Health Minister Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) thanked Gou for his efforts to help Taiwan obtain vaccines during a daily press briefing, adding that the application was already under review.

Meanwhile, an official at the Ministry of Economic Affairs told CNA that Economics Minister Wang Mei-hua (王美花) had taken a call from Gou on Monday, to make sure he had the necessary information and contacts prior to completing the application.

The government, which initially expressed strong reservations about local governments and private enterprises attempting to procure COVID-19 vaccines, has lately softened its position, on the condition that it remains firmly in control of the process.

I'm no political strategist, but this is how I'd handle it. 

What I think they're really doing: the government knows this is a game, and they know vaccine procurement is no joke. They're aware Gou is highly unlikely to succeed. Better to just let him try and let the problem take care of itself, so the inevitable accusations of "blocking" him won't look credible -- because they won't be. 

Secondly, I don't claim to have data regarding how Taiwanese feel about these vaccines. However, from my students (everyday office workers -- generally just normal people, not political activists), there seems to be an understanding that this is indeed a game, and it was started not by the Tsai government, but China and the KMT. Many are filtering out news like this, choosing to only watch the 2pm CECC press conference because they're "sick of the rumors and bad reporting". Online it seems the world's gone haywire, but in the meatspace, there are still plenty of sensible people. The game hasn't turned everyone into a disinformation zombie. And China's "better vote for who we want or you'll suffer!" tactics have been backfiring since 2014.

I've also not heard anyone from this admittedly anecdotal group express any misgivings that Taiwan isn't good enough, can't manage this, or is somehow incompetent or unable to run itself as a country. Quite the opposite, in fact: they're staying home and talking about getting through this together as a country. That's good news.

Finally, this won't last forever. It can't. More vaccines will come; we'll get through this outbreak. Taiwan has proven itself a competent nation, as much as if not more so than any other developed democracy. China and the KMT are using this window of time between the outbreak occurring and vaccine availability to launch an attack, but this attack is time-limited. It will end. It's just unclear how much damage there will be.

Will Terry Gou actually procure these vaccines? Will they make it into Taiwanese arms? I honestly don't know, though I highly doubt it. It's almost irrelevant, however. To the orchestrators of this circus, the theater is all that matters.

A Taxonomy of Lies about Taiwan's Vaccine Situation

Razor blades in candy were always an urban legend, but I wouldn't take China's candy

Trust me, nobody wants to talk about a different topic more than me, but as long as disinformation is permeating discussions about vaccine access in Taiwan, it's important to make sure reasonable clarifications are available in English. 

I want to start by saying that I understand there is a lot of fear and anxiety right now. There's an outbreak in Taiwan that, while not growing exponentially, is still growing. It is probably controllable over a period of months, but that still means several months of worry, doubt, admonitions to stay home, and yes, some deaths. Hospitals are strained. There's a global vaccine shortage in most countries, while the US is flush with doses, and other countries have struggled to obtain them. 

That's a worrying situation to be in, and I don't want to diminish it even as I repeat my message to not freak out. 

It also presents a window: a time when Taiwan is trying to manage its outbreak while attempting to obtain vaccines which are in short supply globally. Eventually, Taiwan will get this under control and vaccines will be available, but we're looking at a timeline of months. That gives malicious actors plenty of time to disseminate disinformation, and for those lies to fester. And some unsavory political elements are trying to use that window to sow distrust in the Taiwanese government -- specifically Tsai and the DPP -- while calling for cooperation on the surface. These same elements turn and point fingers at the Tsai government for "playing politics". 

Anxious people may believe things that give them an outlet for their stress, so I'm not writing this to belittle anyone. It's pretty normal human behavior, and not all believers in disinformation are ill-intentioned. I do believe people are glomming on to this "we want BNT" storyline because it represents a type of hope. They want vaccines and these seem available. They're not, but that doesn't mean those who misplace their hope in these vaccines are bad, or wrong, and I don't intend to imply otherwise.

Rather, I just want to create a clear record in English to prevent further misdirection.

Let's take a look at each of these false claims about Taiwan's vaccine situation in turn, and then hopefully leave the topic behind for good. 


The national government is unfairly blocking local governments from obtaining vaccines on their own

The story here is that the CECC said earlier in May that cities and municipalities could procure vaccines on their own if they wished, and people are complaining that the CECC is "now" insisting that only the national government can procure vaccines.

This is genuinely confusing, so I don't blame anyone who perhaps skimmed this news believes that this is  a course reversal or about-face meant to take power away from local governments. 

The key point, however, is that the vaccines these local governments could potentially buy, and the distributors that sell them, still need to have been approved by the central government before the purchases can take place, and the batches themselves also need to be tested. This is usually done by the central government, and then after given the all-clear, a municipality could theoretically purchase these drugs on their own.

The central government noted, however, that the procurement procedures were complex and cumbersome, and would probably be challenging for a city to pull off on their own. Imagine if, say, Nantou City approached BioNTech, which rebuffed the Taiwanese government, or called up Moderna, which sold doses to Taiwan which are coming late due to a global shortage. What leverage does Nantou City have that Taiwan doesn't? Why would those companies sell to Nantou, not Taiwan? Do they have the resources to get through the procedure in the first place?

However unlikely, in theory, I suppose it could be done. 

The issue here is that the local governments trying to "buy their own doses" now aren't talking about buying approved batches from approved distributors. They're talking about the Shanghai Fosun doses, and Shanghai Fosun has not applied for approval to distribute their product in Taiwan. Therefore, they're not approved, and municipal governments cannot buy from them.

Hence, the government is clarifying that locally-procured doses and the brokers who sell them still have to go through the same Taiwan FDA approval process as everyone else. 

This limitation also applies to Terry Gou, who says he wants to purchase ten million vaccine doses. If he can do that through an approved channel and get those doses to the government for the required batch testing, then fine. It'd prove that the government could just throw around cold, hard cash -- but fine. 

However, if he thinks he can just buy whatever from any channel he likes and get those doses in Taiwanese arms without the usual approval process, he's dreaming.

By the way, there's an update to the Terry Gou story: the game continues. It turns out manufacturers don't want to sell to these various non-government-affiliated parties.

If these municipalities truly wanted to approach approved channels to purchase more vaccines on their own, I'd be very interested to hear the whether the CECC's answer might change given recent political hassles. It would actually make sense to centralize one's vaccine strategy given the current crisis to ensure the fairest possible distribution, but I hope the CECC would make that clear.

Tsai and the DPP are trying to keep out foreign vaccines to 'protect' the market for the Taiwanese-made vaccine 

This is obviously untrue. In fact, I'll go ahead and say it's a blatant lie. 

If it were true, why has Taiwan spent the better part of a year trying to negotiate for every foreign vaccine they can get their hands on, from AstraZeneca to Moderna to BioNTech -- millions of doses in all?

If uptake on these doses has been slow, it's because there's a global vaccine shortage and massive inequities in availability (the US, for example, clearly has plenty), and ordered shipments are taking longer to fulfill. Plus, it is absolutely plausible that China has been blocking Taiwan's attempts to secure vaccines. Taiwan only implied this before; now they've come right out and said it's the case. It has nothing to do with trying to 'protect' a local product. 

If the government were trying to 'protect' the market to ensure the domestically-produced Taiwan vaccine has enough takers, first, that would entail endangering lives and a full-blown COVID health system breakdown to possibly make money later on.

The Taiwanese government isn't perfect, but I highly doubt they'd do that -- you'd have to think of them as monsters. They're imperfect, but they're not monsters. (China, on the other hand, absolutely would do that to Taiwan and the CCP is indeed run by monstrous people). 

This "insider trading on the local vaccine" accusation likely arises from the extremely confusing story of Tungyang 東洋, a Taiwanese pharmaceutical company, which had been in talks with BioNTech and possibly, Shanghai Fosun as well (though I'm unclear on this). but pulled out for unclear reasons. Some say the amount of product offered for the price made for a poor business decision. It has been reported that at that time, the drug wasn't far enough along in clinical trials for the company to feel confident in the deal, whereas others say Tungyang dithered too long. Still others say that the government wasn't adequately supporting them (one would expect the government to commit to purchasing those doses from Tungyang, once approved). 

I don't know what happened, but it seems clear that if the Taiwanese government turned its back on these BioNTech doses to protect their own profits from local vaccine sales, then they wouldn't have tried so hard to procure millions of other foreign vaccines. Whatever is going on here, it isn't that.

In fact, it sure sounds like the sort of thing people who stand to make a lot of money on the Shanghai Fosun doses would say to divert attention from their own activities. (I can't prove that, however.)



But China can't block Taiwan's access to vaccines!

Yes, they can. 

I'll talk more below about how people came to believe that the only way Taiwan can access BioNTech vaccines must be through Shanghai Fosun, the Chinese company that claims it has rights to "Greater China". 

But first, Taiwan has every right to seek another distribution channel from the manufacturer, which can accept or reject this. Taiwan has now directly stated that China intervened in Taiwan's own negotiation with BioNTech, which again, it had every right to engage in.

This wouldn't even be close to the first time China has pressured an international organization or company to change how it deals with Taiwan, from excluding Taiwan from the WHO, trying to block international aid to Taiwan after major disasters, to pressuring airlines and IELTS and other English proficiency exams to call Taiwan "Taiwan, China".

The vaccine issue is no different.

If you think China can't do the exact same thing to a vaccine distribution contract, please think again.


Shanghai Fosun has the "right" to claim distribution for BioNTech in Taiwan, and the government is trying to circumvent them

This has a veneer of truth, but is ultimately false. 

Drugs available in Taiwan need to be approved by the Taiwan FDA, and are often batch-tested as well (this is certainly the case with coronavirus vaccines). Brokers and agents -- who may have the right to produce the same drug, or sell an already-produced drug from the original manufacturer -- also require approval. 

Fosun doesn't have this approval in Taiwan itself, so its "rights" don't exist here -- it can't just barge into the market at will. It still needs that TFDA approval.

For many drugs, multiple avenues of purchase are approved in Taiwan. If you're on any long-term medication, you might have noticed that the packaging and even 'look' of the drug changes, despite the actual drug being the same. For example, my main anxiety medication is lorazepam. It's usually branded as "Silence" -- small, white pills in bubble sheets. Then my hospital changed distributors and I still got lorazepam, but they were larger, yellow pills dosed out into sealed plastic packets (I don't remember the name, but it had changed). Now they're back to the familiar Silence. Once, I was given Ativan: tiny blue pills in gold foil sheets that are half as strong, and was told I can take two. Ativan is lorazepam in a smaller dose. Why? The hospital changed suppliers, but it's all the same drug.

It's very common, and a highly competitive business.

Approval, however, remains crucial. Even if the drug is not fake, if it's sold through an unauthorized channel, the government considers it to be "counterfeit". It doesn't matter if that distributor has an agreement with a manufacturer whose drug is approved in your country; the distributor also requires approval. Any pre-approval agreements are contingent on that process being completed.

What does this mean for Shanghai Fosun? That they may have "secured the rights for Greater China" including Taiwan from BioNTech, but there is absolutely no law or regulation stopping Taiwan from seeking out an alternative method of acquisition. BioNTech could always refuse, but they always have the right to authorize another distributor that is not Fosun.

It's not even that rare, and it sure doesn't seem to be a problem for Fosun or the CCP if the buyer is pro-China billionaire Terry Gou, who once called independence supporters "garbage".

That's why they talked to Taiwan in the first place, before backing out -- after pressuring Taiwan to remove the word "country" from the contract -- under what I can only assume was some sort of pressure or (ahem) aggressive incentivization. 

In fact, what Fosun has are the rights to sell a drug called "Fubitai", which is BioNTech's drug with a Chinese name. As far as BioNTech is concerned, it has no official Chinese name for its drug, that's a name Fosun is authorized to use. Taiwan has every right to seek out the same drug, not branded as "Fubitai". Another distributor for this drug is Pfizer, and Pfizer has no agreement with Shanghai Fosun. Although BioNTech might object -- meaning perhaps the contract would be rejected or there would be a fee -- there is no law prohibiting Pfizer and Taiwan from working together. 

Even Tungyang,  the Taiwanese company which tried to secure BioNTech rights but ultimately didn't (a long convoluted story that could be its own post), was not doing anything wrong by ultimately not working with Fosun. They might have made other mistakes, but talking to BioNTech was not one of them. Companies do it all the time. The only real issue here is that the government's messaging could have been clearer.

And this isn't even getting into the timeline of when Taiwan was or wasn't specified in the "Greater China" contract with Shanghai Fosun. I'm quite aware there's a story here and have my sources, but it's become increasingly clear that it doesn't matter. 


Taiwan "rejected" Fosun's offer of vaccines

Imagine if I applied to do a PhD at Harvard, but before I could even send in my application and proposal, the Dean of my preferred school called me up to tell me personally that she intended to reject me. 

That sounds like the sort of nightmare I'd have, but in the waking world it would be preposterous.

Well, so is this myth. 

The cold hard fact is that Fosun never applied to distribute those vaccines in Taiwan. I offered one possible reason why in my last post: basically, it would require a level of submission commensurate with approval by a national government. So by making such a submission, Fosun would in essence be admitting it is dealing with a national-level government. In other words, that Taiwan is a country. 

People have been complaining that Tungyang (mentioned above) didn't seem to think this was a problem, and that the approval should be fairly easy. However, Tungyang is a Taiwanese company that would be quite familiar with the approval process and regulations. Shanghai Fosun has never applied for such approval because Chinese drugs are banned in Taiwan. In fact, I'm not sure any Chinese drug company has gone through this process in Taiwan. 

Therefore, there's probably another reason Fosun hasn't applied: these doses are said to have been produced in Germany, so in theory, a Chinese company could apply to distribute them in Taiwan. However, Fosun has said they intend to start domestic production of "Fubitai" soon. As they would be Chinese-made, Fosun would not be able to sell them here. They'd be going through all that work for a one-time shipment of vaccines. 

So what is the incentive for Fosun to go through that process for a one-off sale?

Far more likely that it was a political ploy all along to attack the Taiwanese government in the window they have open to them -- when Taiwan is facing a crisis, and vaccine uptake has been slow.

That said, I would actually understand why the government wouldn't want to deal with Fosun. They seem dodgy at best -- complaining about not having rights they never applied for -- and I wouldn't want to deal with them either. It's likely Tungyang got spooked by them too. This might be the reason why the government now insists it will only talk to manufacturers directly: perhaps it got burned in these previous negotiations.

That doesn't mean, however, that Fosun was "pre-emptively" rejected.

I don't really know the full story behind why Tungyang's deal with BioNTech fell through, but it doesn't really matter. Perhaps the government could have supported Tungyang more. Perhaps it seemed wise in the moment to decide against the deal, as the vaccine hadn't been through all clinical trials. The government's own messaging on this could be a lot clearer.

Regardless, the company kicking up a fuss now is Fosun. And yet, they don't seem to be any closer to actually applying for distribution approval. 

You can just buy vaccines at Costco in the US, so why not do that?

This one is the funniest, but fortunately doesn't seem to be widely believed. And yet, there's always someone.

KMT Chair Johnny Chiang recently tweeted out a picture of a vaccination center available at Costco in the US, and KMT city councilor (and person who perhaps needs an intervention) Wang Hong-wei 王鴻薇 posted that if vaccines were so easy to get in the US that you could just buy them at Costco, shouldn't Chen Shih-chung just head to the US and buy out the stock?

I hope that I don't need to post a lengthy explanation of why you cannot, in fact, just go buy vaccine doses in bulk at Costco, right next to the Einstein's Bagels, tubs of oregano and massive graduation cakes.

Perhaps Wang is really that ignorant, but it's more likely that she's smart enough to know how ridiculous she sounds, but doesn't think her constituents are smart enough to see it.

I don't want to put every preposterous statement by every KMTer on the party as a whole. Wang is one city councilor. However, that's hard to do that when it's not just the grunts but the caucus whip saying Chen Shih-chung should be "executed" -- a method of governance the KMT is intimately familiar with, though you'd think they would have figured out was wrong by now. It's even harder when KMTers below him echo that sentiment.

However, with the KMT calling for cooperation with the government while continuing to undermine them at all levels, I have to wonder whether they're truly striving for cooperation or they're just a bunch of backstabbing Mean Girls.



It is possible for Shanghai Fosun to distribute their doses of German-made BioNTech in Taiwan quickly, but the government is blocking them

No.

It's not even clear these particular doses could make it to Taiwan. The approval process takes months, as you can see by the lengths of time some of these contract dramas have played out. At the latest, the doses in question expire by September. There's a very good chance they'd be expired by the time they were even shipped. Plus, it seems odd that Shanghai Fosun would just have all those doses sitting in a warehouse, knowing full well they can't sell them to Taiwan without going through the proper channels. There's a fair chance what they have is the option to buy the doses, not the drugs themselves. I can't prove that, however.

And by then, Taiwan would have other options available, including AZ, Moderna and the domestic vaccine.

Changing that timeline to get the doses here quickly would require changing the law to allow Chinese drugs into the Taiwanese market, and I know very few people who aren't deep blue unificationist extremists who think that's a good idea.

In any case, the main point here is that Fosun never applied to distribute its doses in Taiwan, but is complaining that it can't distribute its doses in Taiwan! The only way around this if Fosun continues its obstinacy is for Taiwan to just...pretend it doesn't have laws and allow Fosun to operate here the way it can in Hong Kong and Macau. 

Essentially, you can have these doses but the price is your sovereignty.

In other words, if you want those German doses of BioNTech, then pressure Fosun to submit the necessary data, samples and paperwork. 

They're the ones holding it up. But even then, it's a daydream to think these doses could possibly make it to Taiwan in time.

Chen Shih-chung is not being transparent about Taiwan's attempts to obtain vaccines

It's true that sometimes the information from the CECC on what vaccines are coming, where they're coming from and when seems unclear. By June, by July, some are coming, we're awaiting the next shipment, they're on order. It would be reassuring to hear something more concrete. The disparity between the number of shipments actually received and what Taiwan says it's ordered seem huge.

However, this doesn't appear to me to be a lack of "transparency". Again, there is a global vaccine shortage. Many countries likely have similar issues: millions of doses on order, but shipments coming frustratingly late. 

I don't have as much of a window into this world as I do into pharmaceutical approval processes (which I know a surprising amount about despite not working in the field, because I've listened to dozens of presentations on just this issue). I would imagine, however, that there are a lot of harried phone calls, negotiations and favors, wheedling and requesting, cases being made, and back-and-forth in order to ensure that at least some of what's on order is received in a timeframe that can ensure the government seems to have the issue under control. 

It's very hard to put this sort of constant negotiation into palatable words for the public. Nobody really wants to see how sausages are made. Information is great, and we need as much as possible. Said in just the wrong way, however, too much information provides fodder for the KMT to call you weak, bureaucratic, slow or ineffective. They're probably just trying to maintain public trust by not raising a fuss (and everyone's blood pressure) about the actual mechanics of vaccine procurement in a time of crisis and shortage. 

One thing I do think they could do better isn't so much transparency, but messaging. The Tsai government still has one key weakness: they don't announce their victories clearly enough. This feels very cultural to me, in a particularly Taiwanese (and perhaps Japanese) way. The KMT seems to have no issue announcing successes regarding things they haven't even done all that well! Clearer messaging on how hard they are working to get all of this to happen without showing the whole sausage might help, but it has to be done carefully.

Chen Shih-chung is not trying hard enough to obtain vaccines (and is satisfied with 'second-rate' ones)

See above. Pay attention to the actual numbers involved when the CECC talks about what it's been trying to order, and how they waited quite some time to go from "implying" that China blocked their access to BioNTech to outright stating it. 

It's quite clear that this is a monumental, difficult and frustrating task. AZ came first because that's what we could get, not because Chen thinks Taiwanese don't deserve the best vaccines. The shipments are slow, again, because of a global vaccine shortage and access inequities. 

I'm not even sure Chen sleeps at this point. That's how hard he is clearly working.

The outbreak is in part due to the Tsai government being 'complacent' about vaccination drives

This is completely backwards. 

The government procured the vaccines it could, and tried to get them out to frontline workers and other priority groups. It was the lack of local transmission at the time that stymied the drive, not complacency. (The area where they made the big mistake was the shortened flight staff quarantine and not ensuring adequate security at quarantine hotels.) 

People didn't want the shots because they didn't think they needed them. 

So, rather than be complacent about that, the government opened it up to just about everyone. It's true that many people who could have simply signed up for a self-paid shot didn't because they didn't realize that nobody was going to follow up on their "reason", but at the time, it made sense to create a small barrier to ensure there wasn't a stampede for vaccines, to ensure that doses would still be available for the priority groups should they change their mind. 

Once it became clear that the local outbreak was a real problem, the government immediately changed course, and now those vaccines have been given to priority candidates. 

That is not government complacency. It's the government trying to include normal human behavior into their vaccination strategy.

A new study on Sinopharm offers evidence that it's more effective than previously thought, therefore it definitely is (and thus we should consider allowing it into Taiwan)

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but as the most reprehensible unificationists in the KMT are trying to use the "let the German BNT doses in!" talk as a gateway to calling for Sinopharm (and other Chinese drugs) to be allowed into Taiwan. This would essentially mean changing the law. 

Not that unificationists and malicious CCP actors see it that way. Having helped create Taiwan's vaccine problem -- and make it seem like more of a failure than it really is in the media -- they offer a "solution": use our Shanghai Fosun/BioNTech vaccines, and here are some Sinopharm ones too! Just issue a "permit". Forget that you have your own FDA and approval process. Forget that Chinese drugs are banned by law in Taiwan. Let us treat you like Hong Kong and Macau! 

It's a poison apple: take it, and watch your citizens' willingness to get vaccinated plummet and pay for it with your sovereignty. Or refuse it, and we continue to attack you for not doing "enough" to procure vaccines.

At around the same time this attack started up, a study came out showing Sinopharm may be more effective than previously thought. However, it is unclear how much protection it provides against severe symptomatic cases or how well it works for older patients. At the same time, the Seychelles, which has the most vaccinated population in the world (it helps that it's a small population), is seeing a fresh outbreak. About 60% of vaccinated individuals in Seychelles received Sinopharm; the rest received AstraZeneca. Although most cases were among the unvaccinated or those who'd only received their first dose, it's still troubling that vaccinating most of a country's citizens with Sinopharm does not appear to be enough to reach herd immunity. 

Generously, I would call this data inconclusive. That one study is fantastic. It's one study. I'd like to see some replication, especially given the situation in the Seychelles.

Now, I actually want Sinopharm to work. In so many countries, it's the only option, or one of the only ones. China, Thailand, Seychelles, half of all available doses in Hong Kong: Sinopharm. With WHO emergency approval, the number of people who will receive Sinopharm will only rise. Those people deserve to be safely vaccinated as much as anyone else. I do hope the doses they have received are effective, as any human would.

That said, I accepted AZ but would refuse Sinopharm. I personally do not trust any drugs from China, nor the government under which they are produced. 

I also do not think the law should be changed or temporarily suspended to allow Chinese vaccines (or any drugs) into Taiwan. I honestly do believe the CCP is evil enough to tamper with the supply, because China is an existential threat to Taiwan. It is in their best interest for Taiwan to suffer. 

As such, I don't even really think the Shanghai Fosun doses should be let into Taiwan. But certainly, whatever data might say about Sinopharm, Taiwan should never, ever trust the CCP or any drugs it attempts to bring into Taiwan.

I don't know the percentage of Taiwanese who'd be willing to take the Fosun-brokered BioNTech doses made in Germany if they could. There's no data. But we do know that willingness to take Chinese vaccines is very low: less than 2%. All those Chinese business executives claiming "Taiwan compatriots" want Chinese vaccines -- and not clarifying the doses in question -- are deliberately dodging this clear fact. 

In fact, if the Taiwanese government were to allow Fosun's German doses in, they'd probably have to ensure they remain separate from any supply where patients don't get to choose which vaccine they receive, as it may impact willingness to make an appointment at all. If the allowed Chinese-made vaccines in, that would cause even more of a problem. Afraid they'd be injected with a Chinese-made vaccine against their will, registrations might well plummet. If they went ahead with the procurements anyway, they'd have to be very clear about messaging: that you'll only get these shots if you specifically sign up for them. 

It's smart for the government to refuse to play this game.

Yes, this is political. But the threat is real, and unique to Taiwan.