To the western media: why offended?
Hi guys, I’m back from my vacation. Time to start blahing again :)
I know this sounds a little off now but since I’ve already written it, I’d love to post it here too. After my interview with the Macleans on the subject of Tibet was published in April, I received, through friends, questions from a columnist of a local newspaper. I replied him with a long email on April 19, as follows.
——————
From the columnist:
Thank you for forwarding this. But I wonder how the Taiwanese friends of this “influential blogger” would feel about their baseball team’s chances in the Olympics if China decided to invade Taiwan? And could she please tell me the body count for those innocent “Han Chinese” that have been killed as opposed to Tibetan protesters? And how exactly she knows that everyone in the Chinese community (as opposed to, I suppose, the Canadian community) is uniformly against the protests?
I look forward to your reply.
My reply:
First of all, I didn’t proclaim I was any “influential blogger”. I didn’t say it. There’s no need to pick on it.
I wonder if you are aware that in a recent poll done by Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council shows that 89% of Taiwanese agree that Taiwan and China should conditionally open up direct transportation links; 41.5% of respondents want Taipei to loosen restrictions for Taiwanese investment in China (which is a record high in years); 81.7% now believe that “One country, two systems” might be applicable to Taiwan (also highest since 2004); only 6% want independence asap and only 1.7% want unification asap; the majority wants to keep the status quo — including “status quo now/decision later” (43.5%), “status quo indefinitely” (20%), “status quo now, independence later” (17.1%),”status quo now, unification later” (10.5%). While 75.1% support Taipei to develop more foreign ties even if that would lead to rising tension on cross-strait relation, 35.2% believe cross-strait exchanges are too slow (also a record high). Taiwan is not seeking independence now in the way the West may have wished. While the Taiwanese want to have more exposure in diplomacy, they also believe it’s crucial to develop better economic ties with China.
Taiwan’s vice president in waiting Vincent Siew and PRC head of state Hu Jintao had a much anticipated “historic” meeting in Hainan last week, which was seen as the “best time in 60 years” in cross-strait relations. The two sides agree to fasten direct transportation, to allow mainland tourists and investment to Taiwan. That’s the picture in Taiwan. Please don’t fantacize that every Taiwanese would take a combative stand against China as the West may have wished.
With that background, you think the Taiwanese are worried about a Chinese invasion?
You asked about my Taiwanese friends. My friend has been a “green” supporter (for an independent Taiwan) for her entire life. And even she agrees this time that only a better cross-strait relation would bring better economic future for Taiwan. She sincerely told me that her “green” friends wanted to have a successful Olympic and they definitely wished to see the Taiwanese baseball team winning a gold medal. What’s wrong with that?
I don’t know the body counts for “those innocent Han Chinese” in the recent Tibet riot, neither did I say in the Macleans interview that I knew. What I tried to point out is that the West should not be so “automatic” in accepting whatever the Tibet camp says. There should be some reflection by both sides. I also wrote in another post that I’m worried about the recent rise of patriotism in China and I see that as dangerous.
I said in my interview with Macleans that “so far I haven’t heard anyone in the Chinese Canadian community who isn’t angry or disgusted by all those violent protests”. “I haven’t heard” doesn’t mean I know definitively *each and every person* in the community doesn’t like the protests. “I haven’t heard” means that’s what I learnt from people I know, from voices I heard from “opinion leaders” (including self-proclaimed’s) and commentators, messages left on my blog and other online forums, as well as callers to local radio phone-ins… all show very similar sentiments towards the disruption of the torch run. Of course you can always find people in the community who think otherwise, I was only telling what I knew.
Also, many people ask: why now? Why didn’t the activists launch a mega protest before Beijing was awarded the Olympics 8 years ago? If the protesters are really against China “only” and not the Olympics, that should be the place they vent their anger, not robbing the torch from innocent atheletes. Plus, if they choose to protest now, why can’t they protest peacefully?
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe China needs to do a lot to better its human rights record. As I said in here.
I am just trying to open up more dialogue, hoping that by airing “the other side of the story” may kick-start the western media to do more research on the history of China and Tibet before taking everything the Free Tibet activists (and to a large extent too, the Falun Gong) say as granted without casting any doubts. While it’s all legitimate for the media to be cynical about the credibility of whatever the Chinese government says (as they expelled all foreign reporters), they should also doubt the information offered by other opposite side. Isn’t that something journalists should be doing? I don’t understand why so many colleagues in the western media are offended by this.
You might want to take a look at the following articles on “the other side of the story”: (note that not including pro-Tibet stuff here doesn’t mean I ignore them. I consider that pro-Tibet voices have been well heard and well received that I don’t need to remind you here)
- an article written by F. William Engdahl for Montreal-based Global Research
- and by Michael Barker
- and by a former Australian diplomat
- and by an Australian journalist (who recently received death threats)
- Dalai Lama’s recent interview with a HK-based magazine
- a perspective from India
- and by an American political analyst
- and by myself
- and a poem circulating on the net
BONUS:
A friend of mine, Eric, also wants me to pass along his messages to you:
The West, or at least the right wing of the west, keeps geo-politicizing their value system. Somehow they believe that supporting a geographic region against another geographic region is about values.
The last time they carried that belief out they invaded Iraq. We were promised a stable and democratic Middle East. But I have seen nothing but a disaster yet!
This time it is China against Tibet and China against Taiwan.
People in Taiwan must be very surprised to learn that they are given the assignment of standing up to China for the assertion of Western values. But judging from the result of the last election, it is a loud and clear NO, we do not want to do that.
Just like Tibet, Nepal is a source of fantasy for many westerners. But possible none of them would have fantasized that those brutal and terrorist- like Maoists would have won in an election. But they just did that. The people of Nepal chose not to live according to the fantasy of the West.
If the message is not clear, let me repeat it here: geo-politicizing western values does not work! And most people in the world have rejected that! In case the West has not noticed.
