Let's get some better Taiwan/China boilerplate

Years ago, reading Taiwan-focused journalism in most international news outlets was a kind of torture. Most were sludge, positioning China's take on Taiwan issues first, if a Taiwanese perspective was included at all. They interviewed China experts on issues affecting Taiwan, or Beijing-based sources. The writers themselves were often China-based or, at best, had been parachuted in. It was a dark time. 

Some pieces and writers were better than others, and stood out all the more for being well-researched and written, among a blasted heath of bad journalism. I won't name names; I probably don't have to. 

Even in those better articles, though, there was often some boilerplate, sometimes cooked up by the writer, sometimes inserted by an editor. It usually read along the lines of "Tensions remain high between Mainland China and the island, after the two sides separated in 1949. China now claims the territory as a renegade province to be reunited by any means necessary".

Everything was wrong with this, from the ‘tensions' which seemed to arise from nowhere, to aggressively refusing to even consider the sovereignty "the island" or "the territory", to centering China's claims and legitimizing them through a lack of interrogation. The "1949" nonsense led readers who had been unaware of Taiwan's pre-war status to think that it had always been a part of the Republic of China, and making the 'split' seem like a deeper crack in historical continuity for Taiwan than it really was. 

Things have, thankfully, improved. More journalists actually reside in Taiwan; in general they try harder to do a better job, or maybe they're just fundamentally more competent. Some stinkers still slip through, but they're more rare and they too stand out all the more when surrounded by better reporting.

The boilerplate has evolved as well. Tensions are still occasionally left unassigned to an aggressive agent (that is, China), and Taiwan is still regularly referred to as an "island" rather than a "country". The "split in 1949" trope is clearly declining in popularity.

Some articles, even those that are specifically about cross-strait issues, avoid the boilerplate altogether, which I take as a positive sign: it means these journalists and news outlets now trust their readers to have some background knowledge regarding it. Here's one example from NPR and another from The Guardian (at least, nothing in this strikes me as boilerplate).

That said, although this weird little paragraph has evolved or in some cases disappeared, it hasn't always improved. I wanted to take a look at some examples of today's good and bad Taiwan boilerplate to see where we are: in what ways has it improved, and what problems remain. 

I'm only looking at news that's free to read, because I haven't found a paywalled news source worth subscribing to. I've lost interest in the Bezos Post, and the TERF York Times has some of the worst columns out there, for example. I'm happy to pay for one subscription, but I can't figure out who deserves my money.

I do suspect today's background paragraphs are either journalist-written, or looked at by a greater variety of editors. In the past it all read kind of samey-samey, but as you'll see below, there are clear differences in the style and 'voice' of this language, indicating more agency on the part of journalists in crafting them rather than an editor non-consensually inserting them. 

Anyway, let's start with some of the better writing. Then we'll slide slowly down the grode pole to the mediocre and cowardly examples, all the way to the dregs. After that, I'll offer some thoughts on what differentiates good from bad boilerplate, and how news outlets might create better background paragraphs on Taiwan.


The Good (Relatively Speaking)

From Reuters: 

China views separately governed Taiwan as its own territory and has ramped up its military and political pressure in recent years. Taiwan says only its people can decide their future and vows to defend its freedom and democracy.

This starts out weak by centering China's position on Taiwan. Then, however, it notes Taiwan as "separately governed", documents Chinese aggression succinctly yet precisely, and ends with the Taiwanese position, with a reference to self-determination. It's a lot better than what we used to get. At least readers will have a clear idea of who the aggressor is and who just wants to govern themselves in peace. Bonus: it avoids calling Taiwan 'an island'! 

From CNN: 

At the center of that box of exercises is Taiwan, the democratically ruled island which China’s Communist Party claims, despite never having controlled it.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has vowed to “achieve reunification” with the island, using force if necessary.

This starts out better, with Taiwan in the forefront (in an article mostly focused on the Chinese navy, no less), and references to Taiwan's democracy and real history, namely, that the PRC has never governed Taiwan. "Reunification" is properly contextualized in quotes, and the aggressor is clearly marked as China. The only real problem here is the use of "island". Taiwan is a country. If news agencies want to specify that it's a country with the name Republic of China, fine, but it is a country.

Also from CNN: 

Taiwan’s democratically-elected government rejects China’s sovereignty claims, saying only the island’s people can decide their future.

Not bad and centers Taiwan. Though again, Taiwan is more than an island. 

Another one from CNN:

Taiwan is a vibrant democracy of 24 million people that Beijing’s ruling Communist Party claims as its territory – despite never having controlled it. But it is not recognized as an independent country by most governments in the world and has lost a string of diplomatic allies to Beijing in recent years.

"Vibrant democracy" has become a bit of a trope, but it starts off centering Taiwan, so I'll take it. "...despite never having controlled it" is solid. The second half of the paragraph is a lot more questionable: factually true, but implies that China's claim might have some legitimacy. Still, it's not wrong, so it goes in the "good" pile. 

This is a solid example of how to center Taiwan in boilerplate inserted into articles about Taiwan -- it's easy. The first sentence should be about Taiwan, not China.

I'm on the fence about this example from Newsweek:

China claims democratically governed Taiwan as its own, although the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled there. Taipei is a key U.S. security partner in the center of the so-called first island chain in the Western Pacific.

It centers China, and I'm not a fan of "so-called first island chain". Is that not an actual phrase, albeit debatably outdated, that has been used to describe Taiwan's geostrategic position? Why the scare quotes? However, it correctly notes that the CCP has never governed Taiwan. It is true that Taiwan is a "key U.S. security partner", so overall I'd say this is more good than bad. 

This paragraph from AP also centers China, but is otherwise above-average: 

China considers Taiwan its own territory and uses such deployments to advertise its threat to encircle and possibly invade the self-governing island. China also hopes to intimidate Taiwan’s population of 23 million and wear down its equipment and the morale of its armed forces.

At least it clarifies that China is the aggressor and intimidator, whereas Taiwan is self-governed.

This example from The Guardian centers China, but is otherwise not as bad as some of the examples below:

China’s ruling Communist party (CCP) claims Taiwan is a province of China and has vowed to annex it under what it terms “reunification”, by force if necessary. Social media is a key battleground in China’s information warfare, as it seeks to convince or coerce Taiwan into accepting annexation without military conflict.

While it properly contextualizes "unification" and uses appropriate verbs such as "annex" and "coerce", I think it gives China a little too much credit for attempting non-military means of annexation. They're willing to start a war, let's be clear about that.

I approve of the verb choices, though, so we'll call it strong.

The Not-As-Bad-As-It-Could-Be

Let's look next at the "mediocre" boilerplate. Not the worst, but not the best. 

This example from DW includes a reference to the desires of Taiwanese people, rendering it less terrible than it would otherwise be: 

Beijing views Taiwan as a breakaway territory, and has not ruled out using force to take control of it. A majority of Taiwanese are opposed to unification with the mainland, according to Taiwan's National Chengchi University.

I would not, however, go so far as to call it "good". Readers might see Beijing's centered perspective and think that China might have a point, or that such force might be justified. 

Let's all agree to call China "China", and not "the mainland" -- stop implying a territorial relationship that does not necessarily exist.

I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph from Reuters, or if it even counts as boilerplate: 

Beijing had angrily rebuked some of Lai's recent remarks as the two capitals clashed over their competing interpretations of history in an escalating war of words over what Beijing views as provocations from Taiwan's government.

On its own, it's terrible. "Competing interpretations of history"? You can take that both-sidesism and shove it up...eh. But it's in an article filled with quotes from Taiwan about the Chinese threat and Taiwan's determination. The context makes it more palatable. Ridiculous as it may be, China's perspective can be included somewhere, I guess.

This is an example of cowardly meh-ism from Al Jazeera:

China insists that democratic, self-ruled Taiwan is part of its territory and has threatened to use force to bring the island under its control. Taiwan has allied itself with the United States, angering Beijing.

Centers China? Check. Island rather than country? Check. "Angering Beijing"? That's a new one -- technically true, but thumbs-down in a background paragraph. If China's claim on Taiwan is illegitimate, which it is, its anger at Taiwan's actions, which are not an act of war, is irrelevant. It saves itself only with "democratic, self-ruled" and noting that [China] "has threatened to use force". 

I'd like to go on record, however, that I don't care much for "the threat of force" as a language choice. Let's not tiptoe around what that means: an invasion. A war. Massive casualties. Violence, death, upheaval. "Using force" can mean anything, from an aggressive arrest to riot police. These are bad, but they're not the same as a war.

The Economist is hard to parse on Taiwan. Sometimes it publishes absolute trash, sometimes it's better than I expect. I don't subscribe, but I use the free article allowance to read some of their Taiwan coverage. This isn't boilerplate exactly, but contains some of the same background:

For years, the island has had to live with a degree of doubt. When President Donald Trump declines to say whether he would risk war with China to save Taiwan, he is following the precedent set by most modern presidents, who used “strategic ambiguity” to deter rash moves by either side to change the status quo. Under the terms of that uneasy stand-off, China calls Taiwan a province that must one day return to the motherland. The island’s leaders deny being part of the People’s Republic of China, but stop short of declaring Taiwan a separate country. [Emphasis mine]. American ambiguity leaves China’s supreme leader, Xi Jinping, wrestling with uncertainties. If Mr Xi wants to avoid conflict with America, he needs to be sure of a quick victory, or must stay his hand. As for leading Taiwanese opposition politicians, they have long seized on that same ambiguity to portray America as an unreliable friend, and counselled accommodation of China to buy peace.

This is fairly nuanced, with quite a bit of interesting detail, and more than one Taiwanese perspective. That inclusion sufficiently interrogates China's claims, and it fits nicely within the article, which is better than average for The Economist on Taiwan. They're not wrong that Taiwan needs to reconsider its defense strategy as the US grows increasingly unreliable and erratic in its rhetoric.

The line in bold sinks it, though. Taiwan's leaders have stopped short of calling it a country? What?

Here's Lai Ching-te calling Taiwan "of course a country". Oh look, here he is doing it again. And again. Those are just the quick-google results; there are more examples. Did The Economist not fact-check this?

This split-paragraph example from Reuters should be terrible, but it comes at the end of a long article on President Lai calling Taiwan a country, so we'll call it a draw:

China says democratically-governed Taiwan is "sacred" Chinese territory that has belonged to the country since ancient times, and that the island is one of its provinces with no right to be called a state.

Lai and his government strongly reject that view, and have offered talks with China multiple times but have been rejected. China calls Lai a "separatist".... 

The defeated Republic of China government fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing a civil war with Mao Zedong's communists, and that remains the island's formal name.

As with the old "split in 1949" paragraphs, this gives just enough factual information to help readers draw the wrong conclusion about what Taiwan was before 1949, if they didn't already know. It quite possibly hints that the reader shouldn't take Lai Ching-te too seriously. If Taiwan is a self-governed democracy, why does it matter what China says it has the right to do, or not?

It does reference Taiwanese democracy, puts Chinese rhetoric in scare quotes, and notes Taiwanese overtures for dialogue, so I can't dismiss it entirely, though.


The Downright Ugly

Now let's look at the scrapings at the bottom of an expired jar of cheap peanut butter, the musty and outdated, the deplorables.

I'm not sure whether to label this one from The Guardian as mediocre or hot trash juice:

Beijing intends to annex Taiwan under a claim that it is a Chinese province currently run by separatists, and vociferously objects to other governments acting in any way which lends legitimacy to Taiwan’s democratically elected government.

This isn't the worst compared to what used to somehow make it to publication, but neither is it good. It centers China -- what Beijing intends (which is a bit of an assumption of an event that hasn't yet happened, but isn't exactly wrong), China's objections, China's denial of legitimacy. The only thing good about it is the very end, where it notes that Taiwan's government is democratically elected. It must be inferred by the reader that this renders Taiwan sovereign. 

I'll give it one point, actually: "annex" is the correct word for what China intends to do. Not "unify" or "reunify", but "annex". That, if nothing else, saves it from the garbage heap.

I generally like NPR, but I'd say this is even worse: 

Beijing considers the self-governed island a part of China, and hopes to "reunify" it with the mainland eventually....

With Lai's win, tensions seem poised to rise. But analysts don't think Beijing wants to provoke a war at this point, and will carefully process early signals from the newly elected Lai.

Whoever wrote this split-paragraph nonsense should be ashamed of themselves. I appreciate that "reunify" is in scare quotes where it belongs, but "the mainland" and "island" imply a territorial relationship between Taiwan and China that doesn't necessarily exist, it centers Beijing's claims, and mentions "tensions" with no agent.

In the paragraph between these two statements, Lai's stance is described as fairly moderate, but book-ending it with Chinese viewpoints hints that the tensions might just be Taiwan's fault, or Lai's (they're not). 

The use of "eventually" downplays the seriousness of China's threats, and the analysts' take that China doesn't want to "provoke a war" again makes Beijing seem more moderate than it is. The implication here is that any war would therefore be "provoked" by those "signals" from Lai. 

Terrible. Shame. Shame! 

This short paragraph from DW is like the tiny lil' turd your eco-friendly toilet just won't flush:

Beijing sees Taiwan, a self-ruled island, as a breakaway province, and is actively discouraging diplomatic and trade ties between Taipei and other nations.

Points for "self-ruled" I suppose, but readers who don't know the background might see this and think that Beijing's claim is legitimate. I suppose the writer is more focused on the drone market than geopolitics, but still.

This one from Al Jazeera is so close to some of the others that I've considered in a more positive light, but sinks itself with the unqualified "reunification": 

China considers Taiwan, a separately governed island, to be a part of its territory and has vowed reunification by force if necessary. Taiwan’s government rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims, saying only the island’s people can decide their future.

I appreciate the nod to the Taiwanese perspective at the end, but "reunification" of the "island" with no contextualization whatsoever? As though it's the bare truth? Come on.

We'll finish off with two steaming turds from the BBC:

Cross-strait tensions between China and Taiwan have heightened over the past year since Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, who champions a firm anti-Beijing stance, took office.

He has characterised Beijing as a "foreign hostile force" and introduced policies targeting Chinese influence operations in Taiwan.

Meanwhile, China continues to conduct frequent military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, including a live-fire exercise in April that it claimed simulated strikes on key ports and energy facilities.

Nice job blaming Lai for China's aggression by timing the heightening of ill-defined tensions with the start of his administration. I suppose the BBC still thinks tensions magically arise out of nowhere. Readers who don't know better might easily come away with the notion that Taiwan is the more hostile actor.

I didn't think one could do worse than this, but somehow the BBC persevered and won its place as some of the worst journalism on Taiwan:

Tensions have ratcheted between Taiwan and China over the past year. Taiwanese President William Lai has adopted a tough stance against Beijing, calling it a "foreign hostile force". Meanwhile, China has held regular drills around Taiwan to simulate a blockade of the island.

Tensions have an agent. Someone ratchets them. They do not ratchet themselves. There is no need for passive voice, BBC. The creator of those tensions is China, but by not saying that, the BBC once again implies that President Lai and his "tough stance" are more to blame than the actual aggressor. 


What can we learn from this?

There is no clear winner or loser among these examples. Like public transit in US cities, no one paragraph is quite good enough to win a gold medal, and the bad don't deserve to be ranked. However, among the better-crafted writing, there are some clear trends: 

1.) They lead with Taiwan

Taiwan is a vibrant democracy of 24 million people... 

At the center of that box of exercises is Taiwan, the democratically ruled island... 

Taiwan’s democratically-elected government rejects China’s sovereignty claims...

 I'll even give one to The Economist: 

For years, the island has had to live with a degree of doubt.

These are good. My writing advice is to do this. See how easy that was? 

2.)  They don't call Taiwan 'an island'

I understand that it's hard to make a pivot from "island" to "country". I don't exactly understand why it's so hard, but I comprehend that it is. Instead, try not doing that:

China views separately governed Taiwan as its own territory and has ramped up its military and political pressure in recent years. Taiwan says only its people can decide their future and vows to defend its freedom and democracy.

China’s ruling Communist party (CCP) claims Taiwan is a province of China and has vowed to annex it under what it terms “reunification”, by force if necessary. Social media is a key battleground in China’s information warfare, as it seeks to convince or coerce Taiwan into accepting annexation without military conflict.

Some of the worst examples do manage this, proving that even if you aren't allowed to call it a "country" because someone above you in the hierarchy got dropped on the head as a child, you don't have to call it an island. So don't.

If for whatever reason you are forced to call Taiwan "an island", at least start your paragraph with a nod to its sovereignty and democracy. You can even use a "vibrant democracy" cliché. It's fine.

3.) They assign an agent to 'tensions' or interrogate Chinese claims in some way

Lai and his government strongly reject that view, and have offered talks with China multiple times but have been rejected. China calls Lai a "separatist".... 

A majority of Taiwanese are opposed to unification with the mainland, according to Taiwan's National Chengchi University.

...although the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled there. 

...despite never having controlled it.

Taiwan says only its people can decide their future and vows to defend its freedom and democracy. 

Social media is a key battleground in China’s information warfare, as it seeks to convince or coerce Taiwan into accepting annexation without military conflict.

China also hopes to intimidate Taiwan’s population of 23 million and wear down its equipment and the morale of its armed forces.

If you want your reporting on Taiwan affairs to be good, interrogate claims and be clear about what China is doing, exactly. None of this "tensions have ratcheted since Lai took office" nonsense. You can do better, so do better. 

 4.) They avoid or properly contextualize terms such as "reunification", "the motherland" and "province"

I don't think more examples are needed; you've seen enough. If you're going to use these words -- but really, try not to -- scare quotes and context are your friend. These are things China claims. They are not objectively true. Don't present them as such. Even "mainland" should be avoided if necessary, as a 'mainland' is the greater land-bound part of a single territory, implying that Taiwan has a mainland. It doesn't. Ever since the constitutional amendments of the 1990s and early 2000s, neither does the Republic of China. In fact, it arguably hasn't since 1949 because it never did stipulate exact borders, if you care about how the constitutional court interprets the constitution. Which, um, you should.

5.) They don't give half-baked information

Good boilerplate doesn't provide just enough background to hint at the wrong conclusion. That was the problem with the old "1949" language, and we've thankfully seen only one example of it in the paragraphs above. If you want to talk about the civil war and the ROC, of course you can, but be careful. If your readers won't necessarily know what the status of Taiwan was before 1945, or will assume that the ROC still claims all of China, you're potentially citing too little historical fact.

If you can't add more, e.g. that Taiwan had been a Japanese colony until 1945, not part of the ROC, or that the constitution was found to never have been an authority on ROC borders regardless of what the old dictatorship said, consider making a different choice.

As for what not to do, well, ignore all my advice and write about how "Tensions have ratcheted between the island and the mainland since Taiwan's new Beijing-hostile president took office, angering China with his rhetoric as well as allyship with the United States. China views the island as sacred territory and a province to be reunited with the motherland." 

Do that, and I'll fart in your general direction.

On China, Republicans won't get out of their own way

I don't have a good cover photo tie-in so enjoy this one just because I like it.

Earlier this week, a few well-meaning people shared footage of Senator Tom Cotton grilling TikTok CEO Shou Chew on his nationality and ties to the Chinese government.

Chew is Singaporean, not Chinese -- at least, regardless of how he identifies culturally, he is not a citizen of the People's Republic of China. The clip made for good drama, and was delivered so unwittingly by Cotton to give his opponents fodder for calling Republicans Sinophobic, naive, and racist.

These commenters are not wrong. Tom Cotton sure does come across as racist in that clip, and frankly, his worldview is racist. Here he is in 2020 asserting that the "founding fathers" purposely put the nascent United States on a course to ending slavery -- a claim for which there is no evidence except someone's fever dream desire that the system they were born under and are proud of is also systemically racist. And in case it's not clear, "slavery was seen as a necessary evil", even if true (it's not true), is not good enough.
This pespective, for instance, is racist:  

 Cotton clearly states that he is pleased that American chattel slavery died long ago. But he also clearly states that he thinks this country was only made possible by importing non-consenting persons into forced and uncompensated labor, with all the attending horrors. 

 

I'm sorry, but no, the fate of enslaved people was not some sad inevitable necessity to build a 'great nation'. No nation founded on slavery which then defends that origin can be great, because their foundation is pure horror. It must be possible to build a nation without slavery. If we can't, maybe nations shouldn't exist. Slavery was bad but necessary is execrable excuse-mongering and Tom Cotton is a racist. It's no surprise, then, that he'd question an Asian man in the most racist possible way.

If you're a well-meaning liberal who is fine criticizing the United States (please continue, by the way, that place sucks) but desperately wants to view eery other country in the world through the most positive lens possible, it's easy to stop there. "Look at this Sinophobic racist," you can say, and you won't be wrong.

It makes it easy to say criticizing China is racist even though it's not true because, well, look at this racist opposing Beijing in the most racist possible way. Liberals and the left have ignorant adherents, just like the right. Perhaps they are fewer and less malicious, but they exist, and many of them seem hell-bent on turning "US bad" (true) into "other countries good, probably" (not true per se). It's often just contemporary Orientalism. China is far away and has a very different culture and thus it's Exotic and Exciting, and can't possibly be Run by a Brutal Genocidal Regime. They're primed to defend TikTok because it's Asian and Asian Things Good, but -- and I hate to tell you this -- not all Asian things are good. Groundbreaking, I know. This bothers me a lot, because when it comes to TikTok, the US government is not wholly wrong.

I personally won't use TikTok. In fact, after learning how malicious WeChat is, I won't use any Chinese app. TikTok has been accused of using similar malware. I would recommend nobody use any such app, but clearly the world doesn't listen to me. To their detriment! TikTok may be Singaporean, but its parent company is ByteDance, which is Chinese. In general, Chinese companies are beholden to the CCP for their continued existence. Nice company you got there, shame if something were to happen to it, that sort of thing.

You do what the government says, give them the data they demand, publish what they tell you. You never, ever criticize. Otherwise, you might end up in jail like Jimmy Lai or in what sure looks like exile -- like Jack Ma.

More specifically, ByteDance has an internal CCP committee. Most if not all Chinese "private" companies do. They've been accused of spying on Hong Kong protesters (almost certainly true) and their former head of engineering has said this:  

 

Yintao Yu, formerly head of engineering for ByteDance in the U.S., says those same people had access to U.S. user data, an accusation that the company denies.

Yu, who worked for the company in 2018, made the allegations in a recent filing for a wrongful dismissal case filed in May in the San Francisco Superior Court. In the documents submitted to the court he said ByteDance had a “superuser” credential — also known as a god credential — that enabled a special committee of Chinese Communist Party members stationed at the company to view all data collected by ByteDance including those of U.S. users.

 

Insiders also allege that TikTok is tightly controlled by ByteDance. This isn't a loose parent/subsidiary relationship. 

It's not just something alleged by a gaggle of racist senators, either. It's the subject of FBI investigations. Everyone from investigators to insiders agrees that data from US TikTok users is available to the CCP via ByteDance.

I don't know if TikTok should be banned necessarily, but I do support governments around the world insisting ByteDance divest itself of TikTok for it to keep operating in their country. This is something the Chinese government will most likely never do -- the whole point is CCP data harvesting and media influence -- which means the rest of the world has to force the issue. Which, to be honest, most countries probably won't do, as most lack the stones to stand up to Beijing. Before you come for me, by the way, I do think there's a difference between TikTok/ByteDance's data harvesting and Google's. Both are problematic, but Google isn't controlled internally by a US government committee insisting it turn over user data both domestically and internationally. Google has the power to collect such data, at least internationally, and the US government can request it, and that's very bad.

However, it is not the same as direct government involvement and frankly control of what sure seems to be a purpose-built data harvester and global media influencer. They're both bad, but one is a hell of a lot worse. Which brings me back to Tom Fucking Cotton. He didn't have to hand his opponents a ready-made Look At This Racist clip, but he did. He could have questioned Chew in a reasonable way, about real concerns, and maybe helped convince Americans that they should indeed be wary of TikTok. But he couldn't get out of his own way to do that. Republicans, in general, can't, even when they're not entirely wrong. It bothers me even more that Tom Fucking Cotton is a big supporter of Taiwan. Probably for the wrong reasons, but he is.

I understand that Taiwan needs to work with every party, and cultivate support wherever it can. It's not in a very good position vis-à-vis China, and doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing its allies. I used to be concerned that pro-Taiwan sentiment being associated with the American right was a problem, and frankly, that's still a worry. Now, however, I worry as well about rejecting any and all support that isn't perfectly aligned with our own values. This isn't just because Taiwan cannot afford to make support for its continued existence a polarizing or partisan issue. It's also because we don't all have the same values. Taiwan has leftists, but isn't a country chock full of them. Not every independence supporter is on the left! It has reactionaries, but again, they don't represent a consensus. Personally, I sympathize with the left but I'm not a communist (I'm nothing because ideology is for the dull, but if I were going to pick a leftist ideology that makes more sense, I suppose I'd be an anarchist, or at least anarchy-adjacent). Avowed conservative public figures who aren't quite Tom Fucking Cotton support Taiwan too. We're never going to all agree, and it sounds frankly very Leninist to try and force us to.

It will never stop bothering me that we have to deal with reactionaries, though. I vomit in my mouth a little every time the Heritage Foundation pops up in relation to Taiwan (hurk). I don't try to engage in more advocacy because I personally will not associate with people who think I, as a woman, do not deserve full human rights and bodily autonomy. But we do have to deal with them, which means that when it comes to Taiwan, Tom Fucking Cotton and all his crappy friends are sadly not going away for the time being. If Cotton can't even get out of his own way on an issue he's not totally wrong about, and stop being racist for the 2 minutes it would have taken to not ask Chew those stupid racist questions, it's very hard to trust him on Taiwan. If all he can see his (frankly correct) hatred for the CCP, then all he sees in Taiwan is a nation that stands in opposition to the CCP. Which it does, but Taiwan is so much more than that, too. We don't need people like him to approve of everything Taiwan does right, from national health insurance to marriage equality. Fortunately, he gets no say in Taiwan's domestic governance. But I can't help but wish he and other Republicans who are ostensible Taiwan supporters could deal with Beijing intelligently, and get out of their own way when trying to stand up to a brutal genocidal regime who is absolutely using fun little videos to harvest your data and oppress protesters. After all, they're not wrong about TikTok, and they're not wrong about Taiwan. Doing so, however, would require them to be less racist and I'm just not sure they can pull that off.

The Great Game Was A Great Idea

The face of every analyst if China invades Taiwan

 By Thadtaniel McDorpington III

The world has changed. Over the past decade, we have witnessed a distinct shift toward a renewed competition between the great powers. The bipolar struggle between the U.S. and China is the new Great Game of the 21st century. In fact, when it comes to Taiwan, the only two countries which matter are the U.S. and China: Taiwan is merely the piece of land they are fighting over.

In my previous work, I noted that the best way to ensure peace between the U.S. and China was for the U.S. to appease China. Expanding on that notion, the best way forward for averting war in East Asia is to treat it the way colonizing powers treated Central Asia in the 19th century -- that is, the Great Game. As we can see from Central Asia today, nothing bad resulted from that. Thus, it is an excellent framework to use in 2024 when discussing Taiwan. 

As today's rivalry over Taiwan is exclusively a Great Powers issue, I am unaware of whether Taiwan has people living on it or not. It is a place on a map whose strategic position is of interest to the U.S. but close to China, which has created a flashpoint. They also produce semiconductor chips there, but it is unclear who produces them. The U.S. needs those chips, but China wants to control their production, and that is the biggest dispute driving the issue. 

Taiwan must belong to someone, but debate rages regarding who exactly that is. The U.S.? China? Some other power or group of people as yet to be identified? The world may never know. 

Thus, if we wish for peace in East Asia, the most obvious solution is to work with China. As they are surely sincere negotiation partners who are open to a variety of outcomes, not just the outcome they demand, we must provide them with assurances. Perhaps we might even convince them that Taiwan could someday choose to be oppressed by them -- wouldn't that be something! 

And you never know: some people like the taste of hard leather. We should simply encourage those elements who prefer boots to be spit-cleaned for an outcome that is...well, not war exactly. Backing people whose end goal is dictatorship has never gone wrong.

All that really matters, after all, is avoiding war. Other concepts, like human rights and self-determination, are, shall we say, flexible. Besides, Taiwan is not a Great Power and therefore not inhabited by any humans worth speaking of, so who would even benefit from those human rights?

The best way to avoid war, of course, is to reassure Beijing that the U.S. will not fight one. As with Britain and Russia playing a rather violent chess game across Asia, China only wants Taiwan to spite the U.S. If the U.S. backs down, surely China will back down on Taiwan! Even if they don't, is it really in the U.S.'s interest to fight a war over some rocks? 

The logic is perfect: if China faces no opposition, from the U.S. or globally, on Taiwan, and is in fact assured that nobody outside Taiwan wishes to fight a war over it, China will realize that the path to conquering Taiwan is too easy, and thus not take it. 

If they do try to take it, then Taiwan, which may be a place where real people live, should defend itself. If it can't defend itself, then China should be allowed to annex it. What happens after that is nobody's business, and if there is a uprising in Taiwan that China has to put down violently through a series of genocides, we can register our shock by insisting we had no idea any of that would happen and how unfortunate it is, as we do nothing.

That's how international law and basic ethics are meant to work, and thus form the foundation of the Great Game. In some cases we even fund the genocides so they happen faster, but I do not specifically recommend it in this instance. Rather, inveighing against China after the fact while taking no specific action is sufficient for us to continue to believe we are good people with reasonable foresight.

Another option is to give Beijing everything else it wants in the hopes that it will be distracted from Taiwan. Surely they will not use our good-faith negotiation and offers of commodities and chip access to take more time building an ever-stronger military that they will use to conquer Taiwan regardless of all of the gifts we bestow upon them. There's certainly no precedent for that, nor any precedent of a country trying to control one of its smaller neighbors by interfering in its self-governance, calling resistance to that interference "separatism" and "color revolution", threatening to invade said neighbor, and then doing so. As that has never ever happened before, it definitely won't happen agai---I mean it won't happen.

It simply makes sense: tensions are raised over Taiwan. As nobody could possibly know who raised them, the U.S. must to everything in its power to keep China happy. Just as it is a well-known fact that respecting rules set by an abuser will undoubtedly cause the abuse to stop, we should respect all of China's red lines until we can figure out where these tensions come from. 

If the U.S. gives China everything it asks for and reassure them that we do not want a war, the situation over Taiwan may remain tense. That is acceptable, as I do not personally know anyone whom it would affect. In fact, I do not believe it would affect anyone at all, as it would not be a problem for the U.S. specifically. This is the normal way of things, and in the Great Game, Taiwan, which may not actually be inhabited, must accept that it will exist forever in a tense situation in which its neighbor threatens a violent annexation, and its possible allies equivocate on their support. 

Five great things to read after the election

I spend so much time critiquing the media that sometimes, I like to point out pieces that are worth reading. The well-written (or spoken), thoughtful stuff that either makes you think, teaches you something, or elevates Taiwanese voices above the general din of foreign commentators. 

Not all of these are about the election specifically. Some are, but some are more about critical points and interesting ideas being made more accessible to international audiences, simply because more Taiwanese voices are slowly starting to be heard. 


A survey of Taiwanese history

First up is one I've already linked: Kathrin Hille's survey of Taiwan's history in the Financial Times. This is the article to give someone who doesn't know much about Taiwanese history, but would like to learn more. It gets a lot of little, often-overlooked details right without being overly long. For example, it's one of the only historical surveys clarifying both that the Qing, for most of their colonial reign, did not control all of Taiwan, and explores in some detail how 'not Chinese' Taiwan really became under Japanese colonial rule -- including in the minds of most Chinese leaders.

These crucial details are often overlooked in historical summaries of Taiwan, which tend to make it seem more tied to China than it ever really has been. It's engaging, readable and accurate. I honestly can't think of anything I'd fix. 

Why Taiwan's election matters -- for Taiwan, and for the ideals of democracy

Next, Michelle Kuo's excellent piece in The Guardian is well worth a read. I love this one because it centers everything Taiwan has gotten right. Essentially, that Taiwan may have its issues but the fundamentals are good. It also correctly positions Taiwanese democracy as something that grew out of the resistance movement to KMT dictatorship. That is, it came from the Tangwai, the fighters, the Taiwanese insisting on something better. 

Certainly, KMT supporters want to believe that they are the party of democratization, because it's easier to take comfort in that than to think about all the ways their party attempted to stop it from happening, and the leaders they take as role models were objectively bad people. (The one KMT leader who is actually owed some respect, Lee Teng-hui, is the one they kicked out of the party.)

Moving back to Taiwan

Next up is a fascinating listen-and-read from NPR on Taiwanese Americans who have chosen to move back to Taiwan. It addresses all sorts of topics, from how their families might feel about their choices, to the relative feeling of safety in Taiwan despite the geopolitical threats.

There's a lot here that expats who do not have Taiwanese heritage, like me, might not necessarily realize when it comes to Taiwanese Americans who make the move, and topics we probably wouldn't think to investigate on our own. 


Emily Y. Wu on CNN

After the election, Christiane Amanpour interviewed Emily Y. Wu on the election results and what they mean for Taiwan. I want to see more of this -- getting Taiwanese voices in the international media rather than bringing on some rando white guy commentator. Wu's answers were articulate and thoughtful, providing perspective on the results and why China's threats have not deterred Taiwanese voters. She does especially well in describing why, exactly, Taiwan is already an independent nation. 

I get so tired of "should Taiwan be independent" or "will Taiwan get independence" or "can we support Taiwan independence" as though Taiwan is not currently independent. If it isn't, who governs it? Someone other than the people of Taiwan? 

I was a little taken aback by Amanpour's seeming lack of preparation. She says Lai referred to Taiwan as "Republic of Taiwan, China", and then double-confirmed it. Of course, he did no such thing. He calls it exactly what President Tsai has always called it -- either Republic of China, Taiwan or Taiwan, Republic of China. Could you even imagine what would happen if a president of Taiwan switched the two names?

Amanpour also seemed to brain fart on President Tsai's name, but hey, we all have bad days. Regardless, Emily was insightful and worth listening to.

An election scholar's take on the results

Finally, there's Frozen Garlic's take on the election results. There's little here that I didn't already know, but Batto lays out a clear narrative of what happened, and what it might mean for the parties, the government and the nation going forward. He spends a lot of time discussing who might be speaker, what it could mean, and how much power the TPP now wields in the legislature (as well as what would happen if there were a battle over Lai's premier pick, and how that would affect the various parties -- especially the TPP). 

The only thing I'd add is that it would be interesting to see the DPP back the TPP's Huang Shan-shan as speaker. I'm not sure they will, and it would be unusual for the speaker to come from a party that holds only eight seats, but it might be a way to get the TPP to consider the DPP's agenda more favorably, rather than simply trying to convince the TPP to support the DPP pick for speaker. 

As a bonus, if you're interested in how the tiny parties did, there's Donovan Smith's take to read, as well. He spends less time on the speaker and premiership and more on how various parties' fortunes have risen and fallen. 

Dear International Journalism on Taiwan: I fixed all your bullshit headlines for you

I woke up this morning elated for Taiwan, and annoyed at the headlines dominating international news coverage. Editors around the world were clamoring over each other to choose the most asinine angle to introduce the results of the Taiwanese elections. 

If these editors festering behind news desks are to be believed, Taiwan is a recalcitrant teen -- a very naughty boy -- defying the will of stern parental figure China. Taiwanese don't care at all about the threat of looming war and are basically taking a "fuck you, Dad, I do what I want!" approach to international diplomacy. As Taiwan slams the door to its room and blasts goth rock while smoking out the window, all the neighbors tut tut because they're "concerned about that kid's future" -- seemingly not noticing that the parental figures are abusive and cruel. It's a lot harder to help get someone out of an abusive situation than it is to worry that they're provoking their abuser.


                                      


Obviously, this is stupid. China isn't Taiwan's parent, and has no say in what Taiwan does. At worst, you might consider Taiwan an adult that's gone low-contact with abusive stepparents and is fully capable of managing their own affairs.

In other words, if Taiwanese voters, who have front-row seats to the Beijing hissy fit and have the missiles pointed at them (dear editors: do you have missiles pointed at you?) understand that appeasing Beijing simply will not work, why can't these major news outlets see it?

Taiwanese voters showed that they, unlike most of the world, correctly gauge the threat posed by China, and understand that accepting the terms of a country that wants to subjugate them simply does not work. They, unlike these editors, consider their own election to be about their polity, their country and their future -- not one dictated by China. 

They understand that a temporary "peace" attained through telling Beijing what it wants to hear -- essentially, we accept the concept that Taiwan is part of China -- won't work. First of all, it's a lie, and Beijing probably surmises as much. Second, it won't be possible to keep up that charade for long. What do all of these "oh my god, it's so provocative" types think is going to happen when China starts pushing for meaningful steps to integration which the Taiwanese public does not want? 

Because whatever it is, it won't be peace. If Beijing doesn't realize that Taiwanese don't think they're Chinese now, they eventually will. And then what?

The only solution, therefore, is to run their country as they see fit and hold the line with China. There simply isn't another way.

Yes, it's a shame that the opposition is either incoherent (the TPP) or are run by filthy unificationists. I would love to see a healthy opposition to the DPP that wasn't a fully bought and paid-for subsidiary of the CPP, and who also had a cohesive ideology, vision and set of policy proposals. 

It would be fantastic if this were a wake-up call to the KMT that they might continue to dominate locally, but they will struggle to win national elections if they continue to push the narrative that Taiwan is China culturally, historically and/or politically (whether through ROC patriotism or bare-faced unificationism). 

I doubt it though. Their internal philosophy is still heavily dominated by Ma Ying-jeou, and that guy lives in another world. Someone needs to buy him a watercolor set and a nice cardigan. Sit him down in a rocking chair and be like "okay grandpa, yes I know, uh huh, Taiwan bad, okay so why don't you paint a nice picture about it, hmmm? There you go. No no, you sit and relax. Let me get you your pills." 

If the TPP could step up and be a true "beyond blue and green" or "beyond cross-strait tensions" opposition, well, I'd love to see what would happen there. But I doubt it, as long as they're a one-man party run by a misogynist third-rate manfluencer whose only coherent ideology is "ME!" 

Anyway, I'm just ranting now.

Truly, the international media has taken great strides in how it reports on Taiwan. With some fumbles, the Taiwan-based reporters are improving on the work of their predecessors who used to parachute in, write garbage and leave. I don't see "split in 1949" nonsense that often anymore, and I haven't spotted a "renegade province" in some time.

Some pieces are genuinely good, like this one in the Financial Times (as usual, ignore the headline). It's nice to read an article and have no notes.

I'm still disappointed in the majority of think-tank analysis, but I suspect it will always be thus. 

The editors who write these headlines, though? 

They didn't just fumble. They took a Lalique vase, filled it with moonshine, drank the moonshine, barfed the moonshine back up into the vase, then threw the vase against the wall so that the barf and shards spattered everywhere, including on them. Then they shat themselves for good measure. 

Anyway, their work is trash and I hope the good reporters who also get hit with flecks of their barf shards will tell them so. 

Or maybe the gods can give them hangnails for every shitty headline they write. Nothing worse than that, I'm not a monster. Won't kill them but maybe will help them re-think their poor life choices. 

Truly, this is a reverse vision board of terrible ways to lead an article about Taiwan.

 

International reporting on Taiwan: getting better, but still not quite there

The road to democracy is bumpy. So is the road to good media coverage of Taiwanese elections.

I don't have a lot of time today, but I want to take a quick dive into a pre-election piece from the BBC on Taiwanese identity. The BBC is a good news outlet through which to look at what reporting on Taiwan looks like now. It used to be absolutely awful -- I mean, really so stinking bad that it wasn't even worth reading for years. Things have improved slowly as the quality of correspondents improved. Now, I might just cringe once or twice while perusing a BBC article on Taiwan. 

The article in question includes an (unintentionally?) appropriate photo of a woman in an ROC-themed clown wig. It starts out with pull quotes from a KMT rally. I can't get too mad that the piece never actually clarifies the truth in light of those quotes. For example, the implication that the DPP doesn't want peace, or plans to declare independence -- neither are true. There's also the implication that the DPP doesn't want peace, or that Hou Yu-ih is an "honest" man. He aided in the cover-up of a sexual assault case in New Taipei during his mayoral administration. "Honest" is not a word I'd use to describe him. Finally, the notion that "independence means war." Uh huh. So does unification. So what?

In fact, if China tried to force the issue of unification, war would be inevitable. Though difficult, I can imagine a distant future in which Taiwan gains de jure, recognized independence without war, although it probably entails the PRC's collapse from internal factors. I do not envision a future in which Taiwanese people ever want to become part of China.

Regardless, which major party is actually intending to declare independence at any point in the near future? Neither. 

But these are real perspectives from real voters; what everyman would give a quote to a news outlet if they knew the reporter would likely tear it apart?

In general, the piece is better than the usual BBC tripe, including many Taiwanese voices across the political spectrum. It describes what life in Taiwan is actually like, though perhaps with too much focus on Taipei. Writer Rupert Wingfield-Hayes clearly went to great effort to look at a variety of local perspectives rather than just spout the usual "split in 1949 tripe" and collect a paycheck. I commend that. 

I appreciate the activists chosen to discuss the pro-Taiwan perspective; in fact, I know two people who refuse to speak Mandarin unless they absolutely have to. Although Mandarin is one of their native languages, they'd rather use English if Taiwanese is not possible. Only if their interlocutor speaks neither will they speak Mandarin. It's an uncommon but worthwhile perspective.

There are a few criticisms to be made, however. First, this blatant untruth: 

The mainland became the People's Republic of China, and Taiwan has remained the Republic of China. Both claimed the other's territory. Neither Chiang, nor Mao, conceived of Taiwan as a separate place with a separate people. But that is what it has become.

This is false. Chiang never considered Taiwan independent, but Mao actually did (and, for the record, so did "father of the nation" Sun Yat-sen, a belief he never changed as he died long before Taiwan left Japanese control. The quote is in the link above but I'll include part of it here as well: 

A year later, Mao and P'eng Teh-huai manifestly dissociated Taiwan's political movement from China by incorporating it into the anti-imperialist revolution led by the Japanese Communist Party. According to the "Resolution on the Current Political Situation and the Party's Responsibility," passed at a meeting of the CCP Central Political Bureau on 25 December, 1935, and signed by P'eng and Mao: 

Under the powerful leadership of the Japanese Communist Party, the Japanese workers and peasants and the oppressed nationalities (Korea, Taiwan) are preparing great efforts in struggling to defeat Japanese Imperialism and to establish a Soviet Japan. This is to unite the Chinese revolution and Japanese revolution on the basis of the common targets of "defeating Japanese imperialism." The Japanese revolutionary people are a powerful helper of the Chinese revolutionary people." 

Wingfield-Hayes is simply not correct in making the assertion that Mao never saw Taiwan as independent, and I hope it is corrected. 

It's worth pointing out, as well, that notions of Taiwanese identity and the Taiwan home rule movement were well underway when Mao and Chiang were both still in China, and Taiwan wasn't in any way a part of China. What the Taiwanese thought of their own land and identity is surely just as important as what Mao or Chiang thought, if we're discussing identity at all. If mid-twentieth century history must be brought into it, then we need more than what two dictators who were not from Taiwan thought, even if one of them forced his ideas on Taiwan in an extremely bloody way. 

I have two more bones to pick with this article, though neither are quite as severe as the falsehood above. 

The first is the disparity in coverage and quotes. I counted approximately five quotes from KMT supporters (more, if you count repeated quotes from one person). 

Quoted people from the green camp top out at two, though each person is given multiple quotes. The article offers a robust middle section devoted to pan-green voices, but begins and ends at the KMT rally. 

Although I commend Wingfield-Hayes for seeking out thoughtful voices from the pro-DPP side, at no point does he actually seem to have attended a DPP rally. 

I'm not inclined to treat this too harshly, however -- the activists interviewed offer substantive and thoughtful points. The spectators at the KMT rally are soundbites without a lot to them. I'm not sure I would have begun and ended such a piece at the rally, but it's not the worst thing a BBC writer has ever done.

My second point of contention is how polls and identity sentiment are discussed. This issue is quite a bit more serious. Here's the only mention of them:

Not everyone feels Taiwanese, or exclusively Taiwanese, but more and more young people seem to lean this way, polls suggest.

To give the issue proper perspective, it would have been wise to include actual poll numbers. I'm truly not sure why that didn't happen -- it suggests that the split is either quite even, or that Taiwanese identity is some up-and-coming thing and not the majority consensus. 

As a review, here are the numbers: 

As of June 2023, 62.8% of respondents claimed purely Taiwanese identity. 30.5% claimed both Taiwanese and Chinese. Those who claim to be only Chinese are lower than non-respondents and probably lower than the margin of error. 

That's not even getting into polls suggesting that the vast majority of that 30.5% who identify as both Taiwanese and Chinese still prioritize Taiwanese identity (though I haven't seen recent numbers, the difference was pretty stark). 

In other words, it's not actually a both-sides issue, although the article is right to examine other factors at play in this election. Identity alone won't win it for the DPP, but the point stands that when it comes to identity, the DPP actually does reflect the majority consensus. The KMT does not. 

And nowhere in this poll does it say that this is entirely a youth phenomenon, though I grant that Taiwanese identity is indeed more popular among younger voters. 

What's more, the article implies that Taiwanese identity is a fairly new thing, but you can see clearly from the graph that it took over as the majority opinion in the early 2000s, right around the time Ma Ying-jeou was elected (in fact, if anything this proves that identity alone doesn't win elections and the DPP doesn't win simply because it pushes Taiwanese identity). 

I'd also like to point out that people want the status quo and don't want to "declare independence" because most say the status quo is "sufficient qualification" to consider Taiwan independent. This is from 2022, but still: 

It would have been nice to see a bit more representation of the actual, poll-tested beliefs that are most common in Taiwan. I don't expect the BBC to interview only those who claim Taiwanese identity, but I do think this article shortchanges the perspective somewhat. It's the majority opinion. Perhaps we should treat it as such. 

Readers of the BBC piece who don't know Taiwan might well come away from it thinking Taiwanese identity is a 'new' concept, that not being part of China is one perspective but perhaps not the majority, or that strong pro-China sentiment is common or even just as strong as pro-Taiwan sentiment when it manifestly, by the poll numbers, is not. This is the narrative I hope the BBC can render more accurately going forward.