Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Why does AP always speak from the POV of China?

Update: AP has a corrected version to my first complain of biased reporting.

I don't know why, and I would like to remind AP of their
mission statement.
...providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.

AP reported:

President Barack Obama says he sees no need to change Washington's "one-China" policy, which views Taiwan as part of China.

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949. Beijing continues to claim the island as part of its territory and threatens to attack if Taiwan moves to formalize its de facto independence.

AP, please read the 2nd paragraph of the beginning summary of the Congressional Report dated August 17, 2009 China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy -- Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei before filing your inaccurate report to spread rumors around the globe.

It says:

The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three U.S.-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. The United States “acknowledged” the “one China” position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC’s sovereignty over Taiwan; has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and has considered Taiwan’s status as undetermined. (my note: in other word, strategic ambiguity)

And, please read my blog right-hand side’s “ATTENTION! MAINSTREAM JOURNALISTS” about the brief Chinese history and the illogical invention of the sentence “Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949.”

Fact:

The sentence would likely mislead uninformed readers to think that Taiwan and China have been together all the time and split in 1949 due to a civil war in which Taiwan was part of the battlefield.

However, the fact is that Taiwan was under Japanese rule since 1895 due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki signed between Japan and the Qing Dynasty in which Taiwan was given away perpetually, and therefore Taiwan was under Japanese jurisdiction when the Republic of China (ROC) was founded in 1912 replacing the Qing Dynasty. When the ROC constitution was drafted in 1925, Taiwan, since was under Japanese jurisdiction, was not included in the list of individually-listed provinces of the territory of ROC. When the ROC constitution was promulgated in 1946, Taiwan had not been brought into the territory of the ROC.

Further, it was the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that fought against each other in China's civil war. After being defeated in China, the KMT fled to Taiwan to take refuge on the island as an exile Chinese government and it therefore extended its temporary stay and doubled its role as a post-WWII administrator of Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Forces per General Order No.1.

On November 9, 2009, AP reported (the last 2 paragraphs right before the end):

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949, but Beijing continues to claim the island as part of its territory. Relations between the sides have improved significantly after Ma took office last May.

Ma has vowed to reduce tensions across the 100-mile (160-kilometer) -wide Taiwan Strait, but he has also said Taipei and Beijing should work on improving trade relations first before moving on to sensitive political and security issues.

Great recognition of improvement of relations that has tensions! It's like describing a couple having honeymoon relationship but with tensions, kind of strange isn't it? The words just don't make much sense to appear together.

If it is true that the relations are so good after Ma took office, why does Ma have to vow to reduce tensions? It's simply not logical when one sentence appears after another!

With China's 1500 missiles still pointing at Taiwan, similar to a situation in which a hostage is being forced at gun point to make love with the hostage taker, Ma seems willing to perform such an insulting role while on-lookers applaud instead of offering assistance.

The phenomenon of improved relations is an illusion created by western media and politicians, but certainly is not being observed the same way from Taiwanese POV.

3 comments:

Ben Goren said...

Excellent deconstruction and a timely reminder of official US policy as it has stated it, not at the PRC/ROC or AP decides to interpret it. Thank you.

justrecently said...

Concerning the stategic ambiguity, I think Taiwanese political groups should address news agencies directly, by letter or fax, and ask for a reply. A newsagency has a high responsibility, as it "feeds" the global media and is sometimes both the first and the last proofreader of its own reports. So I believe they would have to respond to questions from Taiwan.

Άλισον said...

“Strategic ambiguity” is a term used by the US government officials in describing Taiwan’s legal status.

Page 4 of this CRS report has details about the “strategic ambiguity”.

But the mainstream media invented the phrase describing Taiwan as "Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949."

This implies that whoever uses this phrase has the inclination to approve the ROC's claim that the Treaty of Taipei has transferred the sovereignty of Formosa to ROC, but has totally ignored the US's Starr Memo in which it has clarified that neither the Treaty of Taipei nor the Mutual Defense Treaty has assigned the sovereignty of Formosa to ROC.

Post a Comment