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.

Chinese extraterritorial laws prove there can be no peace under "one China"

Beijing has adopted a new set of 'guidelines' that allow the Chinese government to try and convict Taiwan independence advocates in absentia, according to Xinhua. 

I advise you to read the entire thing -- the English translation is entirely comprehensible, and I relied on it as I do not read Simplified characters -- but it's even more insane than it seems on the surface. And frankly, that's saying a lot. 

Commentary so far has zeroed in on the inclusion of the death penalty for some "separatists", although the part about "deprivation of political rights" gave me a chuckle, because it's not like the People's Republic allows its citizens to access any true political rights: 

Those who cause particularly serious harm to the state and the people and whose circumstances are particularly heinous may be sentenced to death. Active participants shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years. Other participants shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, controlled release, or deprivation of political rights.

 

The range of "crimes" that can incur anything from a prison sentence to death are extremely vague: 

The guidelines also detailed what is considered crimes worthy of punishment, including promoting Taiwan’s de jure independence, advocating the nation’s entry into international organizations whose memberships are limited to sovereign states, engaging in official exchanges and military contacts abroad, and conspiring to create “two Chinas,” or “one China, one Taiwan,” in the international community.

They also include taking advantage of one’s authority in education, culture, history and the media to “distort or falsify facts about Taiwan’s historical links to China,” and “suppressing” parties, groups or individuals that promote peaceful cross-strait relations and “reunification” with China, as well as “other acts that seek to separate Taiwan from China.”

 

This is obviously off the rails, so much so that I barely even need to write about it. But what makes it even crazier, at least to me, is the assumption that if tried in absentia, defendants would actually believe it possible enough to get a fair trial in China that they'd send a defense team or appeal the verdict: 

In cases where the People's Court tries in absentia the crimes of "Taiwan independence" diehards who split the country or incited secession, the defendant has the right to entrust or have a close relative entrust one or two defense lawyers on his behalf. If the entrustment is made abroad, the authorization shall be notarized and authenticated in accordance with relevant regulations...

When the people's court tries in absentia a case of a "Taiwan independence" diehard splitting the country or inciting secession, it shall deliver the verdict to the defendant, his or her immediate family members, and the defense counsel. If the defendant or his or her immediate family members are dissatisfied with the verdict, they have the right to appeal to the people's court at the next higher level. The defense counsel may appeal with the consent of the defendant or his or her immediate family members.

 

I didn't know that the CCP was considering a career in stand-up comedy, but anyway, what does this actually mean? 

First, it attempts to silence Taiwan activists or those who'd be inclined to agree with them, mostly in Taiwan, but perhaps beyond it as well. It's meant to scare two types of people: pro-independence Taiwanese, and public figures anywhere in the world who might have reason to go to China in the future. For those in Taiwan, the PRC is essentially saying "we know we can't do anything to you now, but annexation is inevitable, and once that happens you're toast -- even if your activism ceases the moment we take control." 

In fact, it could be taken further than that: they're not just enacting Hong Kong-style repression in advance. They're making it easier to draw up a list of names now, so that if (when?) they do invade, they'll be able to snatch them that much more quickly. It's easier to keep people from escaping if you know who you want to punish in advance. 

Just as a little side note, there's a history of this in my own family. My great-grandfather was an Armenian fedayi, a fighter in the Turkish-Armenian war of 1920. Apparently he was quite the sniper. He moved to Athens and married soon after, but left on the eve of WWII. It wasn't just a general sense of danger: apparently the Nazis looked into things like, oh, say, whether you had a history of armed resistance. My great-grandfather did. The whole family fled.

That's the point I want to really drive home: every once in awhile some wrongo dongo gets it in their head that there can be peace if we just give China what it wants. It's better than a war, right?

But this is not possible. China's "peace" means hunting down and murdering activists, including friends of mine. For supporters who perhaps don't take an active role, it can mean worry for the rest of your life that something you said in erstwhile democratic Taiwan might come back to haunt you, costing you your job, your freedom or your life. 

I've heard people say it's not such a big deal to lose basic freedoms, that it's better than perishing under bombs and guns. Now imagine you surrender those freedoms to escape the guns, only to find your friend shot because he said something five years ago that your new masters don't like. Imagine they start asking you questions, and under duress you admit you attended a few protests, maybe voted for the DPP. Maybe you get shot too. 

Let's say you want to leave, but you can't, because you're associated with people whose names were on a list before the first PLA soldier's boots touched Taiwanese soil. They can take everything from you, including your life. 

That's how it will be, and it's not peace. There can never be peace under "one China". I can say right now that if China takes Taiwan, I have friends who will be murdered under this law. That is simply not peace. 

I could have said all of this a year ago, two years ago -- it's always been true. It's just that now they've made it more official. 

In theory, this could include me. I don't think I'm important enough to be noticed, but the danger is not zero. 

This also effectively bars anyone who's spoken for Taiwan from ever going to China, even if they don't intend to engage in any pro-Taiwan speech while there. You'd think it'd be easy to avoid going to China, and certainly the most prominent activists are banned. But Taiwanese companies do send employees to China on business. Now it's not safe to go, even if your work requires it, if you've made so much as a passing comment online, from Taiwan or anywhere else where access to freedom of speech is protected. 

This isn't a new notion for China, which convicted and imprisoned Lee Ming-che for five years, over his actions in Taiwan, where everything he wrote was fully legal.

In fact, the least scary thing about this is that the Chinese government has been detaining and kidnapping people, putting them through kangaroo courts if they're lucky, without a set of regulations to make it official. This is just paperwork; it's always been the case in practice. Beijing has likely already been keeping a list of people who'll be up against the wall if their annexation bid succeeds; this would just make more efficient. Killing sprees run so much more smoothly if the victims have already been convicted in absentia! 

As these regulations apply to anyone, not only Chinese nationals and Taiwanese whom Beijing insists are Chinese, they potentially affect any journalist, writer, academic, artist or public figure from anywhere in the world. As the Taipei Times source noted: 

Noting that US President Joe Biden has said he does not rule out using military force to defend Taiwan if China unilaterally tries to change the “status quo” across the Strait, they asked: “Does the CCP dare punish him?”

 

We could get more ridiculous with this: could Katy Perry be put on trial in absentia? Enes Kanter? Jensen Huang? John Oliver? Any foreign journalist who has simply reported that Taiwan is self-governed and polls show it wishes to stay that way? Researchers at Acasdemia Sinica who consistently publish polls showing Taiwanese don't consider themselves Chinese? 

How many pro-Taiwan people will look at their business travel needs and decide it's better to stay silent? Perhaps not all, but possibly some. How many of those fence-sitters who say they do believe that Taiwan isn't China but "want peace" or think China taking over is "inevitable" are going to decide it's better to just be quiet? If it's so "inevitable", they're toast, right?

Finally and perhaps most obviously, it silences anyone in China who thinks Taiwan deserves recognition of its current sovereignty, or at least attempts to. The regulations don't differentiate by citizenship, so this could be anyone -- Chinese citizens who were perhaps willing to say that Taiwan doesn't necessarily need to be "reunified", Taiwanese living or working in China, and even foreign residents in China who use VPNs to access the real Internet. I doubt they'd bother going after most such people, though they might pick off one or two Taiwanese in China to set an example. 

If we're really going to dive into what this could mean, trial in absentia does imply a warrant, and will generally result in a verdict. Although it's unlikely, at least theoretically this could embolden China to start issuing warrants or hounding Taiwan activists just as they do Hong Kong exiles. It's not just the National Security Law "in advance", it could well be attempting to promulgate the most chilling provisions immediately.

Outside of both China and Taiwan, attempts to arrest Tawian activists based on such a conviction in absentia would most likely but not necessarily be rebuffed, rendering a whole host of countries friendly to China now dangerous for anyone who's ever advocated for recognition of Taiwan's sovereignty. Although I haven't had much time to consider it, off the top of my head, I'd be worried about parts of Southeast Asia -- say, Cambodia, which has warm ties with the PRC, or Thailand, where Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong was detained and publisher Gui Minhai kidnapped.

If I were being super thirsty, I could ask you guys which countries you think Taiwan activists might get detained or kidnapped from. Where are you afraid to go now? Leave your top choice in the comments below, and don't forget to smash that subscribe button!

(Do I even have a subscribe button? Doubt it.)

Good reporting centers Taiwanese agency

Taking a bit of a risk with my weird graphic, but I like it. 

I don't think of the Economist as an accurate source of news on Taiwan. They report on Taiwan with some frequency, but in terms of relative merits to flaws, their articles are at best middle-of-the-road. At worst, they're unequivocally terrible. Occasionally, the magazine puts out something surprisingly good on Taiwan, but don't ask me for an example from the past right now as I can't think of one.

One of the chief problems with their Taiwan coverage hounds other publications as well: their disturbing tendency to deny Taiwan any agency in its own narrative. Stories ostensibly about Taiwan might barely reference what's actually going on there; to a reader who doesn't actively consider what they're reading, they might come away with the vague, unsettling impression that Taiwan is a barren rock that other countries fight over, just a piece of land to be won or lost. 

It would be easy from this sort of writing to assume Taiwan doesn't have any people living on it at all. 

Great powers fight over it, threats are levied against it, claims are made on its territory, but Taiwan might as well be Olive Oyl (thanks to a friend for that analogy) -- standing their whimpering in the general vicinity of the muscle men who want to possess her but with no apparent personality of her own. Whatever Taiwan itself wants is apparently not relevant to its own story or future. 

I don't know why reporters do this. I would imagine at least some of them have actually been to Taiwan, met and talked to Taiwanese people. They can't possibly think Taiwan is merely some trophy to be won or lost, a square on a chessboard that, if it could express itself, wouldn't have anything to say. They can't possibly believe that the views of Taiwanese people exist only as reflections of whatever China or the US want them to think.

And yet, this is how they write. It is simply bad reporting and in any other context, I daresay it would be more robustly called out as the racism that it is. 

With this in mind, two articles appeared recently in The Economist that show the effect better reporting can have on disseminating global understanding of Taiwan. I'd like to compare them, to elucidate what can be considered good writing on Taiwan, and differentiate it from the crap.

"America and China are preparing for a war over Taiwan", which appeared in the Storm Warning brief with no byline, is pretty bad, though not wholly irredeemable. "Taiwan is a vital island that is under serious threat" by Alice Su is far superior. 

You can tell by the titles: the former foregrounds the US and China, implying that they are making similar or parallel moves regarding Taiwan, although this is not the case. China is preparing to start a war in Taiwan. The US is preparing for the possibility of having to help Taiwan defend itself. Taiwan may as well be an inanimate pawn in this headline, a battered toy for two cats who've got the zoomies to tussle over. 

The latter references Taiwan in the first word rather than the last, and immediately references something about it. The US and China don't even appear in it. "Vital" can mean something like vibrant, or lively -- but it can also mean crucial or (strategically) important. Both are true, and I'd argue the more human definition is just as meaningful as the geostrategic one.

Of course, writers don't typically get final say over the titles of published articles. The Storm Warning article might have been mauled by some squash-brained editor who didn't know better, but have solid content. 

This was not the case. The article is just as bad as the headline implies. Here's how it starts: 

Their faces smeared in green and black, some with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles on their packs, the men of “Darkside”—the 3rd battalion of America’s 4th marine regiment—boarded a pair of Sea Stallion helicopters and clattered away into the nearby jungle. Their commanders followed in more choppers carrying ultralight vehicles and communications gear. Anything superfluous was left behind. No big screens for video links of the sort used in Iraq and Afghanistan: to avoid detection, the marines must make sure their communications blend into the background just as surely as their camouflage blends into the tropical greenery. The goal of the exercise: to disperse around an unnamed island, link up with friendly “green” allies and repel an amphibious invasion by “red” forces. 

All I can say is woof. I can't fault the writing style, as the delayed lede allows for creative scene-setting that draws the reader in. But come on! We've got all this big macho US army energy, references to Iraq and Afghanistan, Taiwan as an "unnamed" island. I understand why all these narrative choices were made, but the cumulative effect is not one of a real island full of real people whose choices are at the center of it all, but two massive military industrial complexes itching to go at it.

I hate defending the US and will do so as rarely as possible, but just by the facts, the US is not planning to invade Taiwan as they did Iraq or Afghanistan. That would be China's intention. 

I know the opening doesn't say this, and does not really criticize US military involvement in Taiwan -- in fact, I get the sense the author supports it -- but it does draw an implicit connection, and I fear this is what readers will take away.

Compare that to the opening of Su's piece:

When Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, announced the extension of military conscription in December 2022, she called it an “incomparably difficult decision”. Taiwan’s young were previously subject to only four months of conscription. Starting from 2024, they will serve a year each, with improved training. “No one wants war,” she said. “But peace will not fall from the sky.” Taiwan must prepare for war, she added, to prevent it.

Without hesitation, the article dips into the situation in Taiwan, providing crucial context about the decisions Taiwan is making and why. Readers get the immediate sense that Taiwan is defined not just by its land but its people, and they have a government and thoughts and feelings and choices and lives. The reader is invited to consider Taiwan for its own sake, and what it might feel like to be in Taiwan with this huge threat looming over you. 

The following paragraphs follow up on this, and the focus does not shift from Taiwan until the third paragraph. 

To be clear, I don't agree with everything Su says here. She calls Taiwan "numb to China's threat" (which is not true) and asks "whether" Taiwan is willing to defend itself. People aren't numb, they're tired and worried and don't want to fret themselves into migraines and insomnia every day, so they compartmentalize it in order to live normally. It's exhausting to spend each day wondering at what point in the future your neighbor's going to press the button on those missiles he's got pointed at you.

I don't think Taiwan has "no consensus on who they are", either. Most Taiwanese identify as solely Taiwanese; the vast majority who identify as both Taiwanese and Chinese prioritize Taiwanese identity. Most say they are willing to defend their country, and most consider Taiwan's current status to be sufficient qualification to be considered independent. There is virtually no support for immediate unification and not very much for eventual unification, either. Most don't want a war, which is probably the main reason why they say they prefer "the status quo". Of course, I can't be sure, this is just a feeling based on anecdotal observation.  Frozen Garlic discusses this in his redux of the relevant poll; I suggest you read it.

Anyway, that sure sounds like a string of consensuses to me! Exactly what kind of country Taiwan is, and how it will defend itself against China, are still relevant questions and ongoing debates. Whether it is a country and whether it should unify with China, however? Though there will always be dissenters, those questions seem fairly settled.

That said, for the purposes of comparing two journalistic approaches to Taiwan, these are the nitpicks of a crotchety old git who has the diabeetus and puts ice cubes in her tea. I shake my cane at you! But truly, Su's article is pretty good. It takes every opportunity to foreground Taiwan and Taiwanese agency, and thus implies to the reader that this is a place that matters, these are people not too different from you, and they matter. It shows the reader that Taiwan has its own internal workings, can make its own decisions, and has its own views on China's aggression. 

This implies that the possibility of war is not because two superpowers are bored and feel like duking it out over some rock. It's because China wants to annex Taiwan, and the Taiwanese do not want this. 

Taiwan has agency, and that agency not only matters but is at the core of the conflict: Taiwan is unwilling to do what China demands, and China wants to take their agency away. How would you feel if someone wanted to annex your land, murder your kid for attending a protest, tell you that you don't get a say?

Without it being made explicit, this sort of story asks the reader to consider these questions, perhaps subconsciously. This rings clear throughout Su's piece, even as I may disagree on the details. 

In fact, after a few more paragraphs we get this gem, which I consider the nut graf but probably isn't:

As Chinese pressure on Taiwan grows, the Taiwanese look for the world’s support. Taiwan stands “at the vanguard of the global defence of democracy”, Ms Tsai has said. To let it go under would be a devastating step towards the might-is-right world that both Mr Xi and Russia’s Vladimir Putin seem to favour.

Instead of starting off with what's happening in the Taiwan/China/US Torment Nexus (protip: don't create the Torment Nexus) to Iraq and Afghanistan, two places where the US screwed up massively, it chiefly describes Taiwan's critical juncture to the resistance against Putin's war in Ukraine. This is the better analogy. 

To be fair, the Storm Warning piece does this too, and compares Xi's irredentism to Putin's. I support this, because it's true. But compare one of their typical paragraphs: 

America, meanwhile, is sending more military trainers to Taiwan. The Taiwanese government recently increased mandatory military service from four months to a year. Prominent congressmen have urged President Joe Biden to learn from Russia’s attack on Ukraine and give Taiwan all the weapons it may need before an invasion, not after one has started. Adding to the sense of impending crisis are America’s efforts to throttle China’s tech industry and Mr Xi’s growing friendliness with Russia.

With one from Su's piece: 

Taiwan has not made up its mind how or even whether to defend itself. It is at once the “most dangerous place in the world” yet numb to China’s threat. Only since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has serious debate about a possible Chinese invasion become normal. That is in part because China’s Communist Party is engaged in an information war designed to sow confusion. It also reflects Taiwan’s tortuous history and politics.

One frames the Ukraine conflict mostly in terms of what the US and China think about it. The other uses it to help the reader understand Taiwan's internal workings.

When it can finally turn its gaze from the US and its Big Tank Energy, it talks about what China claims and how it acts vis-à-vis Taiwan: 

China’s Communist leaders have claimed Taiwan since Nationalist forces fled to it after losing a civil war in 1949. America has long pledged to help the island defend itself. But in recent years, on both sides, rhetoric and preparations have grown more fevered. China’s forces often practise island landings. Its warships and fighter jets routinely cross the “median line” (in effect Taiwan’s maritime boundary) and harass military ships and planes of America and its allies. After Nancy Pelosi, at the time the Speaker of America’s House of Representatives, visited Taiwan last year, China fired missiles towards it.

These are all important details, but shifting focus from the US, everything is now centered around China. The two countries' preparations are "fevered", there are warships and fighter jets and and rhetoric and missiles and some other kind of ships and Nancy Pelosi. 

What there isn't? Anything Taiwan might think or want or even an acknowledgement that 23.5 million people maybe have a role to play and a lot at stake. 

It gets worse. Later on, if you're still reading this Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire-sized article (Brendan's joke about that book: "it takes as long to read as it took to happen"), you get this: 

Given the appalling consequences, would America and China really go to war? Chinese officials say their preferred option is still peaceful unification, and deny there is any timetable for an attack.

OKAY, but Taiwan is never going to accept or choose peaceful unification because they see how badly the Chinese government treats its own citizens, including but not limited to Hong Kong, Tibet and East Turkestan! That "peaceful unification" is not possible, that Taiwan has an opinion on this, that the world has to lie to China to prevent invasion (for now) isn't mentioned -- only that China claims it wants peace. That China knows Taiwan will never choose unification, and yet has not renounced the use of force, should tell you everything about what China wants: war. If they didn't, they'd commit to no war, because it is very easy to not invade your neighbor. 

What's more, this paragraph not only never explores how Taiwan feels about the "appalling cost of war" even though they'd be the most affected, it also implies that China might choose to back off from invasion because it would be bad for Taiwan, some of their troops, and the global economy. LOL. Do you think China cares? I don't.

Worse yet, the wording outright states that all this horror would be caused by "the US and China [going] to war", not China starting a war. 

It continues like this; I read and read, and everything was US, China, US, China, war, war, invasion, imminent war. In many paragraphs Taiwan wasn't even mentioned even though this is where the war would take place! You don't get any meaningful engagement with Taiwan's potential actions until a paragraph somewhere in the potbellied middle of this extremely long piece.

Is it a counter to China's claims, which appear near the top? Perhaps some insight into what is happening in Taiwan right now as they face this threat? Nope. It's more guns and bombs and artillery and rockets:  

Taiwan’s strategy, meanwhile, is to thwart China’s initial landing or prevent it from bringing enough troops. Taiwanese forces would block ports and beaches with sea mines, submerged ships and other obstacles. Backed by surviving aircraft and naval vessels, they would strike China’s approaching force with missiles and pound disembarking Chinese troops with artillery and rockets. Some PLA texts suggest that Taiwan has underwater pipelines off its beaches that could release flammable liquid. Some of its outlying islands are protected by remote-controlled guns.

The fact that Taiwan's extremely justified refusal to be annexed by China (and China's inability to accept this) is at the core of this conflict is simply not worth mentioning, apparently. It's just Anger McRagersons chucking rockets at each other thousands of miles away. The visuals here imply little islands out in the ocean whose primary feature is guns. The implication? This war is stupid, everyone sucks, and the US should stay out of it. If Taiwan falls, so what? It's some random island in the middle of nowhere, it can't be of any importance. I don't want another Iraq or Afghanistan! 

Nevermind that US assistance to Taiwan could be one of the most crucial obstacles standing between Taiwan's subjugation by China, much as the world's support of Ukraine helps Ukraine stave off Russia each day. 

Surely readers know Taiwan has people; some might even realize that the population of Taiwan rivals Australia (and how would you feel if Australia were invaded by a hostile foreign dictatorship?). To the writers, however, it may as well be a fortress stuffed with incendiaries and nothing more. 

I do understand the point of all this -- it's not meant to be a human story, it's intended to be focused on  military tactics. I don't think the article is totally without merit. The various war scenarios provide useful information regarding what a war in Taiwan might actually look like, for readers who don't know. There are worthwhile details about military readiness sprinkled throughout. However, the overall effect is one of BAM BOOM BOOM BANG KAPOW by two big armies over some pile of rocks.

Perhaps we need these sorts of stories. People should be able to learn about what the US is doing abroad, and what it's facing. Isn't there a way to tell that story without ignoring Taiwan almost completely, though? 

Su takes a more holistic approach. She continues with the Ukraine analogies and makes the case for Taiwan both from a global economic and internal perspective: 

Taiwan also has outsize importance in the world economy. A conflict over Taiwan would do a lot more damage even than Russia’s war on Ukraine. Taiwan makes more than 60% of the world’s semiconductors, which power everything from mobile phones to guided missiles, and 90% of the most advanced sort. Rhodium Group, a research outfit, estimates that a Chinese blockade of Taiwan could cost the world economy more than $2trn.

Taiwan’s leaders know that neither strong democracy nor economic importance is enough. The Ukraine war has taught them that a small country bullied by a bigger neighbour must demonstrate that it has the will to resist. Fight back, and there is more chance that the world will come to your aid. But Taiwan is not ready to fight.

The Storm Warning piece also references the global economy in a very similar paragraph, but never ties it in or brings it back to Taiwan. The best you ever get is this: 

A war game by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, another American think-tank, found that under its “base scenario” Taiwanese, American and Japanese forces typically severed PLA supply lines after about ten days, stranding some 30,000 Chinese troops on the island. Taiwan survived as an autonomous entity, but was left with no electricity or basic services. America and Japan suffered, too, losing 382 aircraft and 43 ships, including two American aircraft-carriers. China lost 155 planes and 138 ships.

Even in a paragraph about the aftermath and cost of war, Taiwan gets one sentence. Then it's back to what America and China lose. 

While the Storm Warning piece ostensibly about Taiwan never gets any better about actually including Taiwan in the narrative, it's in the warp and weft of Su's work. 

This is what we need more of. Even the military-focused stories should spend more time considering Taiwan's own perspective and role, and what Taiwan has to lose. This is how we get readers to actually see what war would mean, and consider that it wouldn't happen to a place, but to people. 

Of course, one can argue that the Economist published both because the angles are so different: one focuses on Taiwan, the other on the US and China. Three players in one drawn-out story. I can understand that, but taken on its own, the Storm Warning piece is almost comical in how actively it ignores Taiwan. The Economist has a paywall, not everyone reads every article (many can't), and there's no way to make a social media post with two fully-displayed link headers. Good intentions or not, the Storm Warning piece on its own erases Taiwan.

Do we really need these US-China Go Boom-Boom pieces? Arguably yes, but they lack crucial context. Could the useful military and war scenario information be included in something a little less dismissive of Taiwan itself? Perhaps stories like tome in this Storm Watch might at least attempt to include the Taiwanese perspective, or even question whether China is right to claim Taiwan, or their "peaceful unification" talk is possible or meaningful?

Then, beyond how many different types of Big Guns and Ships and Rockets the US and China can chuck at each other, readers might understand that this is a country full of people and they play a crucial role in their own story. 

In other words, in a story theoretically about Taiwan, at least some of the focus should actually be on Taiwan.

Three Great Articles About Taiwan

As I head back from a combination business trip/mini-vacation in southern Taiwan, I thought it would be a good idea to highlight three excellent articles about Taiwan by three smart women who care about this country, and tell you whyI like them so much. If you’re interested in changing perspectives on Taiwan, including through foreign voices, all three are worth reading. Sadly, two are behind paywalls, but if you have free articles left with the New York Times and Asia Nikkei, these are worth the views. 

First up, let’s talk about What Taiwan Really Wants. This editorial by Natasha Kassam in the New York Times does an excellent job of framing the issue. 

A key quote for anyone who can’t get around the paywall: 

The status quo means maintaining de facto independence but avoiding retaliation from China. And the percentage of Taiwan’s people who want to maintain the status quo indefinitely is growing. It is the best-case scenario in a sea of unenviable options.

To be sure, if there were no risk of invasion from China, the majority would choose independence.

But China’s President Xi Jinping has made clear that such a declaration is not available to Taiwan. So the status quo is pragmatic — and preferable.

This is succinct, expert analysis which acknowledges the role of the ‘status quo’ while clarifying that a preference to maintain that status quo does not mean that there is no consensus on sovereignty or unification.

Certainly, not everyone is on the same page. In any society there will be a range of opinions. However, stopping at “most people prefer the status quo” makes the issue sound far more fractious than it really is. The truth is that most people prefer sovereignty and peace — not just one or the other — and if the only available option is this “status quo”, they’ll take it. 

It’s also about time we acknowledged that the way the questions on the “status quo” survey are worded push respondents toward choosing it. Almost nobody wants to choose unification, but there’s no option for choosing “independence, but without fighting a war.” I'm not the first person to point this out, either.

Participants are never asked what they’d prefer absent a threat from Beijing — which is to say, what they ideally, actually want for their country. It's not a pointless question: it's the only type of question that attempts to probe respondents' true desires. Currently, every answer clearly leaning toward “independence” carries an implicit acknowledgement that war might be a part of that choice.

What people are trying to say here is that they want both. They want better options, but ultimately, the status quo is sovereignty. 

Pretending otherwise does a disservice to Taiwan. It relegates “pro-independence” sentiment to only a narrow set of views, when actual pro-independence Taiwanese don’t necessarily fit in those boxes. 

We know this because those same Taiwanese who say they “prefer the status quo” also identify as solely Taiwanese or prioritize Taiwanese identity. People know what they want. Listen to them.

Here is how you can tell Kassam is a true expert: it took my several paragraphs to say that. She clarified it in half the space, without falling into the trap that fells so many analysts: the idea that “the status quo” represents indecisiveness, or that the survey in question even has construct validity. In my opinion, it doesn’t — the questions don’t actually ask what interpreters of the survey think they do.

Next up, Rhoda Kwan writes about the erosion of the Taiwanese language in public spaces for Hong Kong Free Press. This is an excellent piece both for the clarity with which it discusses Japanese and KMT linguistic imperialism, while pointing out that attitudes today, influenced by past authoritarianism, are also barriers to making Taiwanese mainstream in all situations, including formal ones. 

Hong Kong Free Press has no paywall, but here’s a key takeaway:

The academic’s attempts to use Taiwanese in his daily life have been polarising. Although some Taiwanese have hailed his efforts to engage with a long-oppressed facet of Taiwanese life, some have also taken offence at his use of the language in professional settings.

“Some Taiwanese stigmatised the language and believe that it should not be used in formal situations,” he told HKFP. “I had an experience in southern Taiwan where a Taiwanese said to me angrily, ‘How can you speak the Taiwanese language in such a formal situation? I am very surprised that the university employed this kind of faculty member!'”

This anger speaks to the threats facing the Taiwanese language in the island today, where its use is almost confined to certain social milieus. 

“You often hear construction workers or police officers speaking Taiwanese… so there’s always been these environments [to speak it], even though it’s been formally suppressed,” Catherine Chou, a Taiwanese-American history professor, told HKFP.

That’s the tricky thing when a language becomes very context-specific, there’s the danger of actually losing it, because the mentality becomes ‘It’s not for general use, it’s for the home, it’s for very specific business relationships, it’s for people that I know, it’s not for people I don’t know’,” she continued.

This is fantastic because Chou (who is quoted here) is right. I say that with the full force of someone who actually is an expert in this stuff: I’m a die-hard social constructionist and interactionist. And that’s the core of it: you need meaningful and varied opportunities to use a language as well as the motivation to actually do so in order to attain a high proficiency level. 

And the attitude that Taiwanese is for family and friends and informal situations — a ‘kitchen language’ — is now the obstacle that must be overcome. If initiatives like Bilingual by 2030 are to truly give languages like Taiwanese adequate resources, this needs to be taken into account. 

Finally, Erin Hale talks about “Taiwan’s Enduring Fascination with Japanese Architecture” in Nikkei Asia. 

This is a fantastic piece because it uses architecture in an immediately relevant way to deconstruct the half-hearted screeching of online tankies and trolls. 

Ever heard one of them whinge about how Taiwanese still have “colonized minds” because they wish they were still ruled as a colony of Japan? I have. But it’s not remotely true: the underlying assumption here is that thinking of your cultural heritage as partly Japanese is “colonial”, and thinking of it as uniquely Taiwanese is “separatist” — the only way to properly think of one’s culture, according to these people (or bots) is to consider it wholly and unchangeably Chinese. 

But Taiwan is more than that, and Taiwanese history proves it. Acknowledging one aspect of one’s cultural heritage is not the same as idealizing a former colonizer.

Hale lays this out well: 

To many Taiwanese, however, these buildings represent a new "Taiwanese identity of pluralism" where Japanese cultural influence is "not seen as a foreign element that's going to dilute Chinese culture" but as part of a more complex identity for the third-wave democracy, said NTU's Huang.

But, Huang warned, by embracing Taiwan's past, people should not over idealize it. The Japanese era is remembered so well in Taiwan in part because of the martial law that came after it, not because of the innate superiority of Japanese culture or governance.

She also lays out the problems with architectural restoration: it’s expensive, and there are a lot of buildings which were left to rot by the KMT as a form of replacing Japanese influence with Chinese. The lack of maintenance makes them even harder to restore. There are only so many Japanese cafes and restaurants in restored buildings that a country needs, but allowing private companies to do the restoration with the government as a ‘landlord’ has worked in a few cases. 

I’d also add that some of these buildings have been turned into museums, like the Railway Department Park, which was carefully restored in conjunction with the National Taiwan Museum just up the road. 

There you have it — three great writers and analysts, three great pieces, three things worth reading this week. Every one of them evidence that discourse on Taiwan is changing. 

Despite some unfortunate headlines, media coverage of Taiwan recognizing same-sex marriage is exactly what we needed

Pro-equality activists have been talking about the tangential benefits of same-sex marriage (or better yet, marriage equality) in Taiwan for years, most notably that it would be a massive boost to Taiwan's international visibility. Just imagine the international media coverage, all focused on Taiwan, especially if we're the first in Asia, we've been saying since...forever.

Last Friday it happened. We laughed, we (happy) cried, it was the feel-good legislation of the year.  And just like we said, the rainbow explosion wasn't limited to Taiwan. Every major media outlet around the world - not just the ones in Western nations - carried the news.

Let's put that into perspective. After 2014, when I mentioned "the Sunflowers" to my friends in the US, I was met with blank stares. I may as well have been talking about actual sunflowers that you can grow in a garden. This time, I don't think I have a friend or relative in the world who hasn't heard the news. Taiwan did something huge, and it mattered to the news cycle that it was the first country in Asia to strike a blow for equality.

Wait, what was that I just said? First country?

Reading most English-language media, unfortunately, that word has been avoided with the most, um, ductile of language choices (please enjoy some links to examples). First place in Asia. The island's parliament. Taiwan's parliament...in historic first for Asia. First in Asia.

 First what in Asia? It seems nobody is willing to clarify. Or if they are, it's a 'state' (how is that different from a country?) or a 'self-ruled island'.

Of course, a few incompetent dipclowns (like the World Economic Forum) kind of soured it by calling this country "Taiwan, China", The Guardian called Taiwan a country on Instagram then issued a correction that it was a 'state', and now seems to have taken the post down (I can't find it to link it), and of course the Chinese media gonna Chinese media and whatever.

I propose, however, that the good reporting on this issue (and reporting that is good for Taiwan) has far outstripped the few geographically-challenged dumbos.

First, plenty of media did call Taiwan a country. USA Today called Taiwan a "country" via the Associated Press. The Chicago Tribune used it in their headline too, as did Quartz. The New York Times didn't use that word in their title, but they managed to find a quote to help them slip it in, and CNN did too. Bloomberg managed to stick it into three separate quotes the day before the vote (good job!), and a Bloomberg-affiliated video on Youtube uses the word "country" and so did DW. ANI (from South Asia) called Taiwan a "nation", Bustle called it a "country". Here is The Economist using it in their first paragraph and The Washington Post using "nation" towards the top of the article. There are surely more - there are only so many articles on the same topic that I can read.



That's a lot of major media calling Taiwan a 'country' or a 'nation' and a lot of readers who will now understand that Taiwan is indeed a country. Nothing at all to sniff at.

Look beyond the English-language media, and it gets even better. On Twitter, Pierre Baubry noted that most French media called Taiwan a country:

Most French media yesterday used "country" to describe Taiwan.

Bilan de la journée d'hier dans les médias français : Taiwan a fait la une, et le mot "pays" s'est imposé largement pour le décrire, d'Ouest France à France Culture, de BFM TV à Euronews, de Têtu à RFI... 😊

— Pierre-Yves Baubry (@pybaubry) May 18, 2019

...and that lines up with my admittedly shallow research (the sub-headline in Le Monde called Taiwan a 'country'). It's the same in Spanish. No,  really. There seem to be very few outliers, and even this one references the word "country" within the first paragraph.

But you know what? That's not even the best part.

The best part is that almost every single one of these stories, whether they called Taiwan a 'country', 'nation', 'place', 'state', 'island' or nothing at all ('first in Asia!'), focused on Taiwan itself. 

Not its relationship to China. Not what China thinks about Taiwan. Not China's reaction. Taiwan. The deliberations of Taiwan's legislature. What Taiwanese voters and demonstrators think. What President Tsai did. Taiwan's domestic political situation. China was a non-entity, as it should be, seeing as it's a totally different country. I mean, our buddy Ralph "I hate Taiwan but still write about it" Jennings framed his piece in relation to China but...well. Who cares - at least this time - if one guy buried the lede?

What I mean is, for once, the international media mostly reported on Taiwan the way they should have been all along.

When China was mentioned, it was either in passing without any of that 1949 claptrap, or it was to compare Taiwan favorably to China. Yay!

From the Washington Post:

In neighboring China — which asserts sovereignty over Taiwan — popular LGBT microblogs were censored online in the wake of Taiwan’s 2017 high-court ruling. The social media platform Weibo was criticized last month for restricting LGBT hashtags. 

Taiwan has shown that “traditional culture is not against LGBT culture,” said Jennifer Lu, coordinator of the rights group Marriage Equality Coalition Taiwan. “That’s the message we want to send to the world.”

Another great thing? All of the amazing soundbites from Taiwan being reported around the world, which focus specifically on the progressive conversation happening here. From the Washington Post:

Tsai, the president, voiced her support of the legislation in a Twitter post, saying that Friday marked “a chance to make history and show the world that progressive values can take root in an Asian society.”

And another one from WaPo correctly pointing out that this has long been an issue in Taiwan, correctly delineating Taiwanese activist history as continuous and robust:

Chi Chia-wei, a gay rights activist for more than 30 years, said he was “very, very happy” to see Taiwan legalize same-sex marriage, calling the process “a strong demonstration of our democratic spirit.” 

From the New York Times:

“Taiwan has become the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage,” it said, “successfully striding toward a new page of history!” 

Human rights activists said they hoped Taiwan’s vote could influence other places in Asia to approve same-sex marriage.

From The Guardian:

“What we have achieved is not easy,” said Victoria Hsu, the founder and executive director of the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights. “The law will not be 100% perfect, but this is a good start and this is a major step to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now the law says everyone should be treated equally no matter who you are, who you love.”

In another Washington Post piece, properly situating Taiwan as a progressive leader in Asia:

The vote in Taiwan helps “signal it’s not an East-West thing or global North global South thing,” Knight said. Officials in Brunei will have a hard time defending such harsh anti-homosexuality legislation, he said, “when the map of the Asian region is moving clearly in the opposite direction."

From The Economist:

In Asia, Taiwan has long stood out as a bastion of gay rights. The annual gay pride parade in Taipei, the capital, draws tens of thousands, many from overseas.

You guys, this is the kind of reporting that gets the world to wake up and notice Taiwan. This is how we show everyone not only that human rights are not an east-west issue (or a Global South/Global North one, though I would not say Taiwan is in the Global South developmentally), but that Taiwan is a bastion and a leader in Asia. This is how we show them how vibrant Taiwan's democracy really is, and that in fact a lot of interesting things take place here that they probably had no idea about, because the media never bothered to report on it.

For that, I'm willing to overlook a few weaklings who wouldn't dare to just write "country" (and a few purposeful jerks like the World Economic Forum).

Overall, this is a win for Taiwan. Taiwan the country, Taiwan the regional leader, Taiwan the bastion of progressivism (at least by Asian standards).

Now, how do we get all those journalists to keep it up?