No, Taiwan is not China because the ROC still technically exists

The exact face I make when someone says "but under the ROC constitution Taiwan claims China!" 

It's been wonderful this past month to mostly avoid blogging about current affairs. When I get into one of these moods, I find it easier to dive into history, address a long-standing issue in Taiwan-related discourse, or just do travel blogging or book reviews. After a book review and two travel posts with history tie-ins, I think it's finally Long-Standing Issue time.

Often in Taiwan-focused online discourse, I come across a very specific type of viewpoint: if Taiwan wants to be seen as independent from China so badly, they should simply change their name from the 'Republic of China', or but Taiwan is a part of China according to their own constitution, they still claim the PRC! or my favorite (found on Twitter): Taiwan doesn't want to be invaded by China, they want to be China -- they still think they're the real China! 

Let's skip the part where we dissect how people who say these things seem to only be aware of Taiwan's post-1945 history, and literally nothing before that (in some cases they have an extremely biased/blinkered view of what the Qing colonial era was like). We'll skip as well any deeper discussion of whether these commenters are sincere. It seems likely that some are, in that they appear to be real people and not sock accounts. Sometimes, however, the wording of these arguments is eerily similar enough that it's hard to tell what's being repeated because the commenter saw it elsewhere, and what is the product of disseminating specific talking points through intentional disinformation campaigns. 

Instead, I want to go straight to why this entire perspective is misinformed at best, intentionally anti-Taiwan at worst. There's nothing particularly new here that Taiwan nerds won't already know; this is essentially me being lazy. Now, the next time I see it (and there will certainly be a next time), I'll just link this. And now you can too!

Below, I've broken down the (bad) points I've come across and why they're wrong. Variations exist, but they all seem to point back to these main categories of argumentation.

“Under the Republic of China constitution, Taiwan still claims ‘the mainland’” 

On a very technical level, this is true. But on a practical and even official level, it’s not. Or at least, it’s a lot more complicated than “the ROC government claims all of China”. 

Otherwise, how would you explain the fact that both Lee Teng-hui and Tsai Ing-wen have clearly stated that relations between Taiwan and China are state-to-state — two separate national governments — rather than two governments that claim the exact same territory?

Let's explore that a little.

The Constitution of the Republic of China does, indeed, include this article: 

The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly.

Additional articles to the constitution from the early 1990s denoted the difference between the “free area” (what the government actually controls — effectively admitting that the Republic of China does not control the PRC’s territory) and “the mainland area”, and clarified that only citizens of the “free area” (what we generally consider to be Taiwan) can vote for and be represented by the national government. This is the main reason why Taiwan can have a government that accurately represents it, without having to engage in some farcical game of “who represents Hunan? How about Zhejiang? Gansu?” when nobody seriously thinks that the Republic of China governs these places.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it stands to reason that this admission that the Republic of China doesn’t actually control ‘the mainland’ is the constitutional basis for statements by President Lee in the 1990s.

This article is extremely biased to the point of affecting the quality of the scholarship, but it offers up a real quote from Lee and a taste of how angry China chose to be:

According to the transcript released by Taipei, Lee said that since 1991, when the ROC Constitution was amended, cross-strait relations had been defined as "state-to-state," or at least "a special state-to-state relationship." Cross-strait relations, he maintained, shall not be internal relations of "one China," in which it is a legal government vs. a rebel regime, or a central government vs. a local one. Lee's controversial statement, not even known beforehand by Su Chi, Chairman of Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), sent shock waves to Washington as well as Beijing. [Note: Su Chi is the same guy who fabricated the "1992 Consensus" well after 1992]. 

For Beijing, Lee Teng-hui's "two-state" theory was identical to the claims by Taiwan independence forces, that treated Taiwan and the mainland as two separate states. Lee had completely abandoned the unification guidelines of 1991, not even paying lip service to the one-China principle. The spokesman of the State Council's Taiwan Affairs Office criticized Lee for playing with fire....In Beijing's eyes, Lee had made an open and giant step towards independence. The "state-to-state relation" theory went beyond the limit of "creative ambiguity" around the one-China principle and represented a major shift towards de jure independence. 

Often forgotten is this: Tsai Ing-wen, now the President of Taiwan, wasn't just influenced by Lee's shift, she helped craft it: 

Back in the 1990s, as a law professor, Tsai gave Lee's government legal advice on the island's diplomatic relationship with Beijing, playing a key role in forming Lee's "two-state" policy that depicted Taiwan and mainland China as different countries.

There was a strong bond between the two. Lee saw Tsai as a disciple, while the current president considered her mentor as the defender of democracy on the island.

Tsai herself has said much the same thing:

“We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state,” Tsai told the BBC. “We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.

I've said before that Tsai's approach to governance shows that she's read The Art of War by Lee Teng-hui. Well, perhaps it's even more accurate to say that she helped Lee write the book. 

People tend to overlook this now (especially when it’s convenient to forget when one is making a unificationist, anti-Taiwan argument), but Lee’s policy shift was groundbreaking. In effect, it ended the illusion that the “Republic of China on Taiwan” controlled or had any practical claim to what we commonly conceive of as “China”. 

Now, if the constitution directly prohibited such a claim, both Lee’s and Tsai’s statements would have created constitutional crises. They didn’t, which means there is room in the constitution to accommodate such policies. Therefore, the idea that ‘official boundaries of the Republic of China’ don’t necessarily match up with what the Republic of China actually claims is at least possible, in the sense that it’s constitutionally viable.
 

If it weren’t, elections in Taiwan as they exist today would not be possible. They are. Therefore, well, if “p” then “q”, right? And I may not be a legal scholar, but you know who is? Madame President Dr. Tsai Ing-wen. She would know what interpretations of the constitution are possible, and would know to act within them.

So you can’t accurately state that the government of Taiwan “claims” all of China, because it doesn’t. It hasn’t since the 1990s, and that’s only been reinforced by the current administration.

“Taiwan still thinks it’s the real China”

No, it doesn’t. Taiwan is a representative democracy, which means that there would need to be some sort of national consensus among citizens for Taiwan to ‘think’ of itself as anything. Arguably that's always the case, but when it comes to Taiwan, we have reasonable mechanisms for determining what the people think. If you'd like to argue against this axiom, please feel free to be the jerk who thinks people -- even those within a self-governing entity -- aren't allowed to decide how they identify. But don't expect much sympathy: how would you feel if someone told you how you had to define yourself?

For Taiwan to “think it’s the real China”, therefore, most Taiwanese would have to agree that Taiwan is the real China, and that they are therefore Chinese in some sense (whether that’s cultural, historical, political or ethnic — many of these being social constructs and not hard-and-fast categories). 

But they don’t. Most Taiwanese identify as solely Taiwanese, a point that has been well-documented since 2008. Though there have been some dips, that number has mostly grown. Among those who identify as both Taiwanese and Chinese, the data suggest Taiwanese identity is prioritized. These aren’t narrow majorities either. Although of course people in any country will hold a variety of opinions, the numbers here are strong enough to suggest a consensus. 

What’s more, most Taiwanese want to participate in international events as ‘Taiwan’, and there is essentially no support for immediate unification. Even the tiny number who identify as ‘solely Chinese’ doesn’t rise above the margin of error, and roughly corresponds to the number of Taiwanese citizens who actually were born in China. 

Some like to point to support for the ‘status quo’ as Taiwan wavering on whether or not it’s independent from China. It’s true that people tend to support the status quo, but remember, the status quo effectively is de facto independence: it means people want to avoid starting a war over what Taiwan already has, not that they actually think unification is a desirable future outcome. The way things are now, Taiwan governs itself, and a good number of Taiwanese no longer see unification as inevitable. Even articles that obscure support for independence or make it sound like a bad thing admit this:

It’s noteworthy that an impressive majority – almost 75 percent – continue to believe that Taiwan is already an independent country called the Republic of China....For the first time, a plurality of respondents (47.5 percent) now believe that Taiwan independence is more likely than unification.

It's worth noting -- with the usual caveats about poll reliability and pollster bias -- that the percentage of Taiwanese who favor eventual independence is very close to the percentage that want to "decide later", and higher than the number who want to "maintain the status quo forever".

This simply means that there is little to no support for unification, but quite a bit of support for Taiwan continuing to govern itself, while expressing a desire to live in peace. That is, not start a war for formally recognized independence when Taiwan already has most of the practical benefits of it. When Taiwanese say they're against changes that China would choose to be provoked by, it's likely (but not always) the threat of war that they're reacting against. Even those who don't mind the name are aware that "the Republic of China" is never going to "re-take the Mainland."

It means there is a national consensus: Taiwanese identity is not only a thing, it's the sole identity of the vast majority in Taiwan, and that unification is not desired. However, peace is. Therefore, continued self-governance while keeping the peace is what you're really showing when you say Taiwanese "prefer the status quo".

In what universe does such a national consensus on Taiwan translate into thinking Taiwan is the ‘real China’?

“If Taiwan wants to be considered separate from China, it should simply change its name and constitution.”

Given everything above, it is willfully disingenuous to pretend that Taiwan hasn’t changed these things because it doesn’t want to. 

So why do the name and constitution persist? Why did President Tsai say “Taiwan is an independent country, and its name is the Republic of China” rather than just “Taiwan is an independent country”? That’s clearly what she thinks, and given the consensus that Taiwanese is a distinct identity from Chinese, and the majority identity in Taiwan, the next steps should be obvious.

Some of it comes from Taiwanese who do want to retain some aspect of Chinese identity. Okay, well, I maintain a culturally and historically Armenian identity, yet that doesn’t make me any less American. Through that lens, I can understand the impulse. There is a subgroup of independence supporters who want an independent Taiwan but to retain links to Chinese culture and history, and it’s not my inclination (or job, or lane) to argue against this. 

But mostly, it comes from China. The name remains because there is still fear that changing it would be seen as a ‘declaration of independence’ leading to immediate war. The same is true for the constitution. 

It doesn’t really matter if this is true or not: enough people believe it to create a voting bloc opposed to anything that could be seen as provocative towards China. That voting bloc will be used and courted by opposition politicians. I’m not inclined to see the KMT as a bigger threat than China — at this point they’re basically a puppet of China, and I’m more worried about the puppet master than their marionette — but we need to contend with the fact that they will chase these votes.

But who drives that fear? China. Who intentionally sows discord? China. Who stokes fears of war? China. Who decides what the “tension level” is in the Taiwan Strait? China. Who decides to be ‘provoked’? China. 

So why can’t Taiwan just change its name to Taiwan if it doesn’t consider itself part of China?

Well…China.

Think about it: do you honestly believe that if the threat from China disappeared tomorrow, that Taiwan would (after perhaps a small domestic scuffle) want to continue to claim to be "the real China" and keep those parts of the constitution as-is? You know it wouldn't.

Don’t blame Taiwan for this.


"But Taiwan has agreed that it's a part of China as it accepted the Republic of China system!"

If you want to make this argument, please provide references as to when exactly the Taiwanese people were asked if they'd like to host the Republic of China. Chiang Kai-shek made his appeal at Cairo, not to Taiwan. Then, he showed up and didn't exactly ask if his government was welcome. It's true that at the time many Taiwanese did welcome the KMT. It's hard to know how many of the celebrants were sincere and how many were made to go wave a flag, but we can safely assume that there were some of each. Then, the KMT did a horrible job and the people quite rightly protested this. Sure, after decades of brutality and mass murder and forced cultural and linguistic imperialism towards "Chineseness", Taiwan finally forced the KMT to accept democratization and had Lee Teng-hui as a helping hand in the establishment -- eventually, anyway. 

But while Taiwan got democracy, the people have never gotten the chance to decide whether they wanted to keep the Republic of China structure under which that democracy exists. What's more, every major decision made regarding Taiwan's status was made when the dictatorship was still in place. Leaving the UN and other reactions to the loss of formal recognition, refusing to participate in the Olympics as Taiwan, even the meetings in 1992 that did not lead to a consensus were all done by a dictatorship from China ruling the country under Martial Law while incarcerating, disappearing or executing anyone who objected.

If you think any of this was a "choice" of the Taiwanese people when it was done long before they were allowed to vote for their national leaders, read a book.

Even now, when you see people wavering on Taiwan/China issues, it's almost always due to the threat of war. If you want to know what people really think, ask them what they'd prefer if they could have it without China dropping bombs on them.

“Taiwan may as well accept that it’s part of China, because Taiwanese won’t really fight if China invades.”

Here’s the thing: everybody thinks they know what they’d do in the thick of war, or a national disaster. I like to think that if the PLA came a-knockin’, I’d stay and fight. This is my home, after all. But we can only guess at how we’d act, and there’s no concrete way to ‘prove’ people would fight or surrender without inducing the actual situation. Not even I can say with 100% certainty what I would do, only what I intend.

The best we have are polls asking the question now, to find out what people think they’d do. And the polls are clear: a comfortable majority of Taiwanese say they are willing to fight for Taiwan. (The Diplomat link above paints a slightly grimmer picture, and I'm curious about the disparity, but still there are people who say they're willing to fight.)

This also fits my anecdotal observations: the general consensus I’ve seen is that people will do just about anything to keep the peace if that’s possible, but there is a point where you do have to stand and fight, if the other side forces your hand.

As I see it, if this is the best data we have, the burden of proof is on those who don’t think Taiwanese would stand firm, if they want to make that argument. The polls show they would. If you want to say the data are wrong, prove it. 

Otherwise, sit down. What Taiwanese say about their intentions is more important than your opinion. 

Whether or not such polls can accurately predict what people would do if a real war broke out, the fact is that some people will fight. Perhaps it’s impossible to say what percentage, but we know it won’t be zero. Without support, those people would be slaughtered. 

Therefore, anyone who thinks that in this situation a massacre can be avoided — that a straight-up crime against humanity can be stopped — by convincing all Taiwanese to surrender without a fight is dreaming. It will never play out that way, so any discussion of the nightmare scenario of invasion must contend with this. Otherwise, it can be dismissed as either hopelessly naive, or actively and disingenuously anti-Taiwan.

Phew. I think that's it, but if there's a common argument along these lines that you think I've missed, by all means speak up and I'll add it if it can be supported.

Quick update: I quite liked this comment on Twitter: 

2/5 These two may coexist alongside each other without conflict. This is the case in modern democratic constitutional monarchies: the head of state has roles that may by symbolic, administrative and to a limited extent political.

— Franta Prkno (@PrknoF) September 2, 2021

The whole thread is worth reading, but this is the point I wanted to include. It makes sense: the Queen of England exists for symbolic/historical reasons, and it would be a problem if she actually tried to run the government. Everybody knows this. 

But imagine if there was a large, hostile country just off the coast of England who insisted that England pretend the Queen of England was the true head of government -- not some symbolic relic -- rather than the Prime Minister and Parliament, and failing to keep up the pretense would be grounds for invasion. And there was a small but vocal minority of English people who actually believed it, enough that supporters of this country threatening England could point to them and say it's actually all England's fault even when most people know the whole thing is a farce.

Weird, right? 

Well, that's pretty much the position that Taiwan is in vis-a-vis the ROC and China.

KMT (and yes, DPP) hypocrisy and a pragmatic case for vouchers

A doorway to the green...

There was an interesting Taiwan This Week...this week, where the debates over economic stimulus were discussed with Donovan Smith and Michael Turton.

(That might be the most boring sentence I've ever opened with in the history of Lao Ren Cha, but bear with me). 

The DPP wants vouchers, very much like the ones given out last year where you'd pay NT$1000 and get NT$3000 worth of vouchers in return. The new round would be the same, but raise the payout from $3000 to $5000. The $1000 is likely to be waived for economically impacted, low-income or disabled people, and they seem to have already decided that APRC holders will be included as well as the spouses of Taiwanese citizens, the latter having always been included in such schemes. 

Interestingly, the KMT has been saying the program would be better implemented if cash payouts were offered instead of vouchers. From the Taipei Times:

Since the detection of a local COVID-19 outbreak in May, many restaurants and food stalls have been forced to suspend business, and some have closed permanently, Chiang said.

Individual workers are also struggling, he said, adding that public opinion on a universal cash handout scheme was “clear.”

Two-thirds of people want such a program, he said, citing the results of a poll released on Friday by the KMT-affiliated National Policy Foundation.

The economic benefits of last year’s Triple Stimulus Voucher program, which allowed people to purchase NT$3,000 of vouchers for NT$1,000, were not good, Chiang said.

Moreover, the distribution of the vouchers created “chaos” and increased costs, he said.

Briefly, he's right that individual workers as well as business are struggling, but doesn't provide a clear line of reasoning from that to using cash (there is such a line, but he doesn't appear to offer it). The poll numbers may well be somewhat correct, but he's citing an unreliable poll from an KMT-affiliated foundation, so it's hard to say. 

The claim that the first round of vouchers didn't work is dubious at best: I don't think we know yet whether they worked, but we do know that Taiwan's GDP jumped in the months when they could be obtained and spent, and that Taiwan's overall 2020 growth outpaced China's (well, according to reported data, which is not reliable for China) and was the best in the developed world. We may not know if they helped, but we know they didn't hurt. 

The closest we can come to figuring this out is to look at an earlier stimulus voucher program, implemented by the KMT at the beginning of Ma Ying-jeou's first term. One paper -- the only one I could find in the limited time I have to write this -- claims it had little or no effect (that link goes straight to a download and I haven't checked the reliability of the paper). But, the circumstances were very different. New president in power, no pandemic -- although there was a big economic downturn which arguably slammed Taiwan harder than coronavirus, economically speaking.

Did it create "chaos"? I didn't see any. What chaos? Would you like to be more specific, Johnny? Taiwan was probably the least chaotic country in the world in 2020. What are you talking about?

Did it increase administrative costs? Yes, but I would guess not by a huge amount. Cash would be less administratively burdensome; that's a valid point. But, was it prohibitively so? I don't see any real evidence that it was. 

Here's what's more interesting. I've buried the lede and I apologize. It's a bit rich for the KMT to be banging on about offering cash now. As I mention above that the last time the KMT had power, their economic stimulus program was also voucher-based.

Why are they so against it now, when the Tsai administration plan is just a fancier version of the Ma one? (There are some differences: Ma's plan did not require an NT$1000 payout, and had fewer restrictions on how they could be spent.) 

I'm sure they could come up with some reasons that didn't reek of hypocrisy: that people waiting in line to get the vouchers could cause outbreaks (there was no pandemic in 2008-2009), or that the restrictions make it harder for the working class to use them as they'd like (true enough). But they seem to be going for plain old "forget history, we favor cash and we've always favored cash" politicking over actually trying to make a good case. 

To be fair, the DPP didn't seem too fond of vouchers in 2008 either -- lashing out at the KMT for it -- and yet here they are, doing vouchers. It's almost like the two parties actually agree on a bunch of stuff but just can't admit it for political reasons, even if not everything they agree on is actually a good idea.

It's worth pointing out that they can be hypocrites too, and as a result each side keeps saying the other is wrong, but then recycles many of their ideas anyway.

That said, there's nothing I hate more than bad argumentation (okay, I also dislike late-night half-assed Marxist "analysis", but I can forgive it if the person doing it is otherwise cool). 

If you thought I didn't respect the KMT because of all the mass murder and colonialist brutalizing...well, that's true. But I also don't respect them because even when there's a good argument to be made for whatever they support, they don't bother to make it. They literally just bend over, drop trou and show their whole ass. Administrative costs? You guys are the absolute kings of administrative costs, and you were during your 2008 voucher program too! Individual workers? Good point, but since when has the KMT been the party of the working class everyman, not the "my parents were born in China and maybe reported your parents to the secret police" princelings?

Do they even know how to do politics responsibly? It seems not.

Oh, and the People First Party under James Soong has argued for checks. That's cute. My reaction to this suggestion can be seen in the visualization below:
    

"Checks? Okay grandpa."

 
In a "gossiping over wine voice": Checks! Could you even imagine?

One case for vouchers is that they won't increase inflation. But, I don't think the amount of money would be enough to do this, as Donovan points out on Taiwan This Week. I do think the "waiting in line" aspect could be an issue, as both point out. I do think people can be trusted to use the money in a way that best suits them. However, under Ma, people socked away extra cash and used the vouchers to pay for their regular purchases. So, vouchers don't necessarily solve that problem when you want to stimulate the economy, not bump up people's savings accounts by a fairly marginal amount. 

Frankly, this is probably what the restrictions on what they can be used for are trying to prevent: if you can't use them to pay most bills, but only for consumer goods, you might use them to buy food but you're less likely to save an equivalent amount, and you might be tempted to treat yourself especially if you've had a hard time during the outbreak.

I do tend to agree with Michael that this is just another flashy program covering up the lack of a strong, comprehensive social safety net.

Basically, the question is: what is the goal of the Tsai administration? There are two possible objectives: helping those who've been hard-hit by the pandemic (which a series of relief measures and subsidies also do), or stimulating business and getting people back in stores. Honestly, they probably want to do a little of both.

If the former, cash payments would be the better choice as struggling people would be free to do whatever they wanted with that money, and they know their own situations best. 

If the latter, vouchers make sense. It's the most likely way to push people to go out and shop for consumer goods. It's not a bad goal -- such businesses have been hard-hit, especially restaurants, and the faster they can recover, the more people they can employ who might be temporarily out of work. And it does indeed seem to be the priority. There tends to be an assumption in government here that for the very poor, they can and should turn to family to help them out in times of need. Broke as a joke? Go live with your parents!

That sometimes works, but it often doesn't. It would be better to update our understanding of how family may not be an option for some struggling people.

I would posit, however, that this wouldn't be the same discussion if Taiwan did have a real social safety net. So perhaps rather than arguing over vouchers or cash, we should get on that instead. (It's still okay to laugh at checks though. Checks!) And, of course, the foreign community should have more access to them: it would be better for businesses that cater to the Southeast Asian community for sure if more of them could get vouchers, and it might help rouse more discontent over the fact that many are still being locked in their dorms in an extremely racist fashion, let out for only two hours a day. 

So here is the case for vouchers: If the other relief measures liked above were aimed at helping the needy, and the Tsai administration sees vouchers more as a way to jumpstart consumer spending (which would theoretically lead to renewed employment opportunities -- but only theoretically), then the administrative cost of the vouchers may be worth what they are trying to achieve. I suspect the $1000 payout might be aimed at defraying those costs, or possibly as a psychological impetus to push people to go out and spend them.

However, I have a hard time signing on to that fully, when people who are truly struggling don't have a reliable public assistance option and can't pay their major bills with vouchers. 

But this is the most pragmatic case for vouchers: clearly the KMT is actually fine with them, seeing as they used them too. So, theoretically, this is the most unifying view among people in power, it's just that right now the KMT won't admit it. 

As for me personally? I don't have a strong preference, because I don't think it's the biggest problem. The lack of comprehensive public assistance is. If you put cash in my hand I'd be just as happy with that.

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

We sit on your claws and we laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basically, it's a big fat nothingburger. 

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

Quoted at length yet again:

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

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

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

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

In other words, nothing has changed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From those zealous archivers, Focus Taiwan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deal with it.

A Taxonomy of Lies about Taiwan's Vaccine Situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Yes, they can. 

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

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

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

The vaccine issue is no different.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Taiwan "rejected" Fosun's offer of vaccines

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

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

Well, so is this myth. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is completely backwards. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Post: The Left has been wrong on China since the Trump-Tsai phone call

I'm still on hiatus -- my advisor's forthcoming feedback on my draft will determine how much longer that will last. But, in my absence, I thought it would be interesting to open up Lao Ren Cha to other voices, especially Taiwanese voices, with a possible series of guest posts.

This is my first experiment in guest posting, from Eric, a Taiwanese Canadian, written as a reaction to this article on the left's silence on genocide in China. It generally fits with the editorial line here at Lao Ren Cha ("editorial line" being fancy talk for "my opinions") while introducing a new style and perspective into the mix. Enjoy! 

- Jenna


With the recent change in mainstream media narrative on the Chinese regime, accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic, one would not expect too much of a political cost for raising objections to its actions. Threats and attacks on neighbors, technology theft, fentanyl exports, loan shark diplomacy, concentration camps, genocide, live organ harvesting, systematic societal control — anyone who has been paying attention should have long recognized the threat to liberal values posed by this regime, yet the headlining leaders of the Liberal Left have been derelict for some time on this file. Sadly, this is not a surprise to those of us who have been watching this space for a while and have long lamented this problem.

For anyone who has generally progressive views and supports Taiwan and its continuing existence as a free and democratic country this contradiction is particularly painful, as many writers in Taiwan have noted. I have always been and continue to be a supporter of most of the values espoused by the moderate Liberal Left: social justice, environmental protection, universal human rights, yet I have little faith in international institutions and believe in healthy defense, training and advanced weaponry--peace through strength. Realizing that you have loved ones, friends, places and things that you value under constant threat of annihilation enforces pragmatism.

Personally, becoming deeply skeptical of the capital-L Liberal Left (as an ideological brand or label defined by its leading voices rather than a fuzzy set of held values) was a long time in the making, as I watched liberal papers such as the Guardian give voice to awful regime apologists, saw socially progressive celebrities and politicians look down in meek silence or even take pro-Beijing stances, or journalists unthinkingly regurgitating official narratives, making it easier for Beijing to calculate in its own favor as it continued to trample over every value they purported to hold dear. 

For me, the last straw was the response when President Donald Trump accepted a phone-call from Tsai Ing-Wen shortly after winning her 2016 election as President of Taiwan, and the cacaphony of supposedly progressive voices from that corner screaming bloody murder, warning of apocalypse and doom should anyone cross Beijing, heaven forbid the leader of the United States, for all of his faults, should take a symbolic phone call from the democratically elected, female President of one of the most free, liberal and progressive democracies in the world and risk angering a brutal regime that enslaves its own citizens and threatens others. 

That so many failed to even see this hypocrisy or consider that even a broken clock might be right twice a day made me lose much of my faith in peoples' ability to think critically, on both sides of the political spectrum. The biggest heartbreak came from the disappointment of seeing well-known people who I liked and admired unthinkingly retweeting such Chicken-Littlism and the false narratives that go with it or adding to the chorus.

Before anyone can accuse me of naiveté for thinking Trump did this out of the goodness of his heart, of course political and national interests are always considered, and I am OK with that. The minor symbolism of taking the call was enough.

So here we are, more than 4 years later and yet it seems for many, none the wiser. Just a few months ago, those same commentators were defending the WHO despite clear evidence that they had actively and knowingly caused the COVID19 epidemic to get worse, all in deference to China. While Trump was wrong to pull out of the WHO (how can the USA advocate for Taiwan’s inclusion if it’s not even there?), holding a benefit concert that made the WHO look like the victim in all this was laughable. 

Liberals often pride themselves on their critical thinking skills, and yet swallow CCP narratives that a phone call to a democratic leader friendly to the US is a diplomatic crisis. They pride themselves on logic and facts, yet threw a concert to support an organization that was proven to spread lies that harmed global health. They pride themselves on standing for access to human rights…unless the people fighting for those rights are far away. The right thinks masks are mind control devices, poverty will go away if you ignore it, and that it’s acceptable to put children in cages. How are they right about China while we writhe in indecisiveness? How are we losing the moral high ground on this?

The world did not end in war over a phone call. Universities still compromised their values for unsustainable profits, financiers continued to try to reap profits from the Chinese market, cadre money still got laundered in real-estate and commodities still got sold. On the other hand, the pandering obsequiousness with which the UN, governments, corporates and media treated the CCP regime, abetted by the silence of the Liberal Left, resulted in a pandemic that killed thousands, wrecked countless lives and made the world more dangerous and unstable.

And still, the biggest call to action on the left seems not to be the ongoing genocide in Xinjiang, standing with Hong Kong, or supporting Taiwan, but fear that standing up to the CCP is simply too scary to contemplate. A lot of this stems from thinking everything the right says must be wrong, so they must be wrong about China. 

Honestly, they are indeed wrong about almost everything, and Trump is not a reliable ally. Nobody who calls Xi Jinping a “good friend” and doesn’t seem fazed by concentration camps could ever be. But, when it comes to the CCP, the Liberal Left is the one the wrong. Trump is terrible, but when he criticizes China, he’s not wrong just because he’s Trump. 

At this time, I wonder if it would be too small-minded of me to contact those who unknowingly supported the stance of the CCP regime in admonishing the US President for taking Tsai's call four years ago, and see if their view had changed in hindsight. I fear, however, that I would be disappointed.  

Fortunately, critical voices are starting to come out on the Left, surprisingly from parts of Europe, of all places, with the German Green Party or Czech Pirate Party, for example. In the US Congress, important legislation regarding Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang passed unanimously — meaning Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives alike, supported it. There is still time to push Joe Biden away from Obama-era China doves and towards policy advisors who are more realistic about the CCP, and to embrace bipartisan efforts in congress.

We still don't know if even this pandemic is enough to overcome inertia and make people realize that they are affected by what happens in Asia (the last Federal election in Canada was a hold-your-nose-and-vote affair), but hopefully change will come. Regardless, the left-right dichotomy, with its simplifications and polarizing power, has shown that it is no longer useful for the messy, chaotic world we live in.