Panda politics: peace or paranoia?
How do you say no to this?
After the announcement of the selection of gift pandas from Mainland China, reaction here has been typically polarized. A confused Taipei Times claims that Taiwan is somehow ‘standing up’ to China on panda imports. A paranoid DPP spokesperson labeled them today as ‘統戰貓’tong3 zhang4 mao, literally ‘unification war cats’, claiming that the pandas are China’s newest soldiers in its war of unification.
Those of us living outside 陳水扁 Chen Shui-Bian’s distortion field are shocked by revelations that the female panda has won climbing contests at panda kindergarten and that there actually are panda kindergartens.
The best that the DPP-led government seems to be able to do is whine about semantics, creating a sense of ‘helpless anger’ that reflects so well on the R.O.C. While China has quickly adapted to its newfound role of elder statesman, the government seems to be struggling to keep up. The Mainland Affairs Council can only claim that this move "shows no respect for Taiwan", because "China has never contacted our government nor held any discussions with the Taiwanese authorities about the offer of two pandas." Of course the PRC isn’t going to negotiate with a leadership that courts the extreme and offers no concessions. The government is wasting everyone’s time complaining about a slap in the face that nobody cares about. Is this really about standing up to China, or spite because the pandas were given to former KMT Chairman 連戰 Lien Chan and not the ever-humble Chen Shui-Bian? And why can’t the DPP come up with a better foreign policy than “guilt and sympathy”?
Chen has picked the wrong battle here, and unfortunately he’s cowed the DPP so there is no one with the courage to point out the tactical mistake he is making. There is no credible excuse to refuse the offer, and doing so would make Taiwan look like it is refusing confidence-building measures that could lead to reduced tensions. Additionally, some of the core constituencies of the DPP are young people and women, who are naturally drawn to the cute pandas. The PRC is showing more depth and cleverness in its tactics, first going after farmers with the easing of fruit import restrictions last year, and now the panda ploy. At some point, the people of Taiwan will stop forgiving the DPP for being constantly outdone and outmaneuvered.
There is further coverage here, here and here, and more pictures here.
posted by Taiwan's Other Side at 11:39 PM
10 Comments:
tongzhan is better translated as Unified Front, there is no connotation to war, rather, more connotation to luring of defection.
but maybe what you have translated, literraly, is how DPP understands that word.
Interesting thoughts on the topic.
I don't think Chen was trying to make an issue out of the pandas... I think because it involved pandas, this issue was going to capture the attention of many.
There is no way that Chen could avoid addressing the issue.
TOS wrote:
- - -
How do you say no to this?
- - -
To press onward with your alliterative theme, "Pì!"
In order to say "NO," all you have to do is be post-pubescent enough to not be persuaded by such "pulchritude" into forgetting about the 784 missiles China has "pointed" at Taiwan.
Then again, there are panda protection laws, as well as the pecuniary problem. Here's a piece of something I posted about it last May while poised well outside Chen Shui-bian's "distortion field":
- - -
The (monetary) cost of pandering to China
According to an article in Tuesday's Liberty Times, someone from Taipei's Mucha Zoo has reported that it will cost Taiwan a fortune to keep the pandas.
For starters, just building their enclosure will cost an estimated NT$50 - 60 million (US$1,598,210.01 - 1,917,852.02 at the current exchange rate of 1 USD = 31.2850 TWD). Every year, Taiwan will be "required" to "donate" US$1 million (NT$32 million, according to the article) to a panda research center in Sichuan, China. (What kinda "gift" is that?!) An additional NT$10 million would be spent annually here in Taiwan on panda research, bringing the yearly tally (quoting the article) to a whopping NT$53.4 million (US$1,706,897.02)!
Mom, can we not keep 'em?
- - -
You also put forth this preposterous pronouncement:
- - -
Of course the PRC isn’t going to negotiate with a leadership that courts the extreme and offers no concessions.
- - -
Yeah, right -- the targets of China's missiles are sooooo extreme.
Too bad you're not standing outside Lien Chan's "distortion field." Perhaps you didn't pick up on this particular "pearl of wisdom" in the boston.com article to which you linked:
- - -
Taiwan's [Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph] Wu said the Council of Agriculture would decide whether the pandas can come after consulting environmental groups. He said a decision was expected in March, but criticized China for manipulating the press surrounding the offer.
"[Taiwan's] government has not had any discussions about whether to accept the offer of two pandas. But mainland China has continued to use the media to promote its offer and make it look like they must give us the pandas and we must accept them," Wu said.
- - -
Oh, and plaudits to previous commenter jozjozjoz for what she says on her site.
Tim, should we should support the DPP when it wastes trillions on antiquated US weapons and shoddy allies as secondary solutions, but suddenly start counting pennies when there is a potential direct solution? Where is this sense of frugality when it comes to building redundant national rail systems? Of course there is a cost involved, but it's worth it because it directly improves the political problem that is the source of other, greater costs.
While I'm sure we're all impressed by your vocabulary, the large words don’t improve the weakness of your argument. China has missiles pointed at Taiwan. Taiwan has missiles pointed at China. The US has missiles pointed at China, and vice versa. The missiles prove China’s resolve and nothing more. The pandas prove their willingness to negotiate. If the cold war is any example, missile superiority and goodwill (grain) gifts are a powerful combination for peace.
Wu’s comments just confirm that the DPP has been outdone yet again in the international media. There is no one to blame for this but themselves, as they have consistently spurned international opinion and demonstrated no desire to develop Taiwan’s international image. While China has hired media relations firms and lobby groups, we’ve got amateurs complaining instead of fighting back. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of watching China run circles around the ROC.
TOS wrote:
- - -
Tim, should we should support the DPP when it wastes trillions [...] but suddenly start counting pennies when there is a potential direct solution? [...] Of course there is a cost involved, but it's worth it because it directly improves the political problem that is the source of other, greater costs.
- - -
You begin with a classic straw man. My position is not about supporting the waste of money.
BTW, the monetary argument was from the Liberty Times, not the DPP. And as I recall, the figure is in the billions, not "trillions" -- and nothing like the days of KMT rule when military expenditures "big military purchases resembled black holes."
And you're misguided, IMHO, if you really think pandas are any kind of a "solution" to political problems -- much less a "direct solution.
Then:
- - -
Taiwan has missiles pointed at China.
- - -
Would you care to provide some links to show how many and what kind so we can compare these apples and oranges? Are the armed with nukes, by any chance?
And:
- - -
While I'm sure we're all impressed by your vocabulary, the large words don’t improve the weakness of your argument.
- - -
What large words? I was just picking up on your alliteration of the letter "P." But you're right that big words do not support an argument all by themselves. For that, I depend on facts and logic (which are neither increased nor decreased by "large words"). I like to use links, too.
Here's your logic [link added by Tim]:
- - -
The pandas prove their willingness to negotiate.
- - -
"[N]egotiate"? That word means both sides have something to say about the outcome:
- - -
v. intr.
To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement: “It is difficult to negotiate where neither will trust” (Samuel Johnson).
- - -
The panda thing, by definition, does not equal "willingness to negotiate" as it is a unilateral decision. That's why I put the quote from Joseph Wu in my previous comment.
Besides, you said this in the original post:
- - -
Of course the PRC isn’t going to negotiate ...
- - -
Wow! Your argument changed from "isn't going to negotiate" to "willingness to negotiate" in less than 48 hours!
If China has something to "offer" Taiwan, it'll to be a lot more substantive than pandas, and it should only come after doing something to build trust over a long period of time -- not immediately after enacting an "anti-secession" law (as you may recall the original proposition did).
Finally:
- - -
Wu’s comments just confirm that the DPP has been outdone yet again in the international media.
- - -
I can't argue with that. The KMT and China are both quite experienced in the field of propaganda.
I forgot one thing... I'm tired of the both the PRC and the ROC trying to subsume Taiwan.
missiles? right here. So much for Taiwan being an innocent victim.
The pandas are clearly not a solution, but at least it's a start. China is showing that it's willing to use non-military means, and is no less unilateral than declaring independence. What do you expect them to do, do a 180 and agree with Chen? Even the world community doesn't do that, and it's certainly not because of any KMT propaganda.
Err... your link only mentions 3 protoypes of a cruise missile. Doesn't mention any actual missiles that Taiwan has pointed at China.
3 cruise-missile prototypes?! How do those poor mainlanders sleep at night, knowing that their 730 missiles aimed at Taiwan must not be much of a deterrent to ROC aggression?
J.B.
Jonathan Benda, Anonymous:
I'm not suggesting that the ROC poses an equal threat to China - my point is that Chen and the DPP can hardly claim that Taiwan is aninnocent victim while developing comperable weapons systems, not to mention hiding behind its ally's comperable weapons systems.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home