RossFeingold warning against US and DPP government interference in ROC (Taiwan)

[ltlee1]

"Although Taiwan is a mature democracy, there are still things to watch in the final days before the election.

1. Will there be another “Mayday” incident to influence voters? Some voters doubt the accuracy of the allegations that the mainland attempted to force rock band Mayday to make a statement that they support Taiwan’s unification with China. Days after this incident made the news, we only know that anonymous Taiwan officials made this claim to foreign media, and, China has denied it. The Taiwan government should either produce the evidence that China tried to blackmail Mayday, or, if the entire incident is fake news meant to interfere in the election, the persons behind it and the foreign media that published the story should apologize.

The Mayday incident reminds many of the Wang Liqiang incident in the weeks prior to the 2020 election. Four years later, Wang’s allegations that he was paid to interfere in Taiwan’s election have yet to be proven, and Wang’s alleged “spy boss” Xiang Xin was not convicted of any crimes in Taiwan despite Taiwan authorities desperate efforts over four years.

It is unfortunate that some people think it is OK to make false allegations of China’s interference in order to win votes. Hopefully, this kind of incident will not occur again in the final week before the election.
...
3. Will the United States government intervene? In an interview published on January 5, 2024, US National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby said the US hopes for free, fair and transparent elections in Taiwan.

Although this author believes the United States has made it abundantly clear throughout the election campaign that the U.S. prefers William Lai of the Democratic Progressive Party is elected president, hopefully in the final days before the election no US government officials makes additional statements about the Taiwan election that might be election interference.

4. Will United States scholars or former government officials intervene? At least one U.S. scholar, Bonnie Glaser, has already played a controversial role in the election campaign. Will a prominent American arrive in Taiwan this week to influence voters? Will scholars in the U.S. say things that indicate support for William Lai? ..."

https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20240106002820-262104?chdtv

[bmoore]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Times

Since China Times was bought by the pro-China Taiwanese businessman tycoon Tsai Eng-Meng, head of Want Want Holdings Limited, in 2008, the Times has veered into an editorial stance more sympathetic to the positions of the Chinese Communist Party.[10] It has since been criticized of being "very biased" in favor of positive news about the Chinese government.[11] In a 2020 interview with Stand News, an anonymous Times journalist described the editorial stance of the paper as having changed completely after Tsai's acquisition. The interviewed journalist said the newspaper mandated the use of vocabulary that supports the PRC's positions on Taiwan, and prevented its reporters from covering topics that may be seen as against the Chinese government, such as issues involving the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. Tsai himself has openly admitted to airing commercials from PRC authorities.[12]

[ltlee1]

If you want to discuss RossFeingold's commentary, be specific.

[bmoore]

Point is that China Times is not trustworthy on the topic of Taiwan.

[ltlee1]

Whose point of view according to what criteria?
Feel free to start a thread on why certain Taiwanese publication is not trustworthy on the topic of Taiwan.

Or simply use Feingold's article to make your point that Chinatimes is not trustworthy.

[bmoore]

I didn't "simply use Feingold's article to make [the] point that Chinatimes is not trustworthy". You are making things up again. The China Times is not trustworthy since being taken over by a PRC yes-man.

[ltlee1]

I did not say you had used Feingold's article to make the point that Chinatimes is not trustworthy.
You can't. I know that. If one is to make a point, Feingold's article is excellent and Chinatimes (ROC)
is the right platform. Feingold knows Western Democracy and he also know ROC (Taiwan) and its
democracy very well.

[bmoore]

But he doesn't seem to understand the devious PRC tricks the way some do.

[ltlee1]

Sounds like you don't know much about the ROC (Taiwan) and its democracy which leads to decadence.

[ltlee1]

Ross Feingold has been a Chinatimes commentators writing with a Chinese name (方恩格) for years.
His articles, targeting Chinese (ROC) readers, are published in both Chinese and English. I have no
has no idea whether he got paid for his comments. I don't think his comments are syndicated. My take,
he writes to express his American view for ROC Chinese, an American insider to other ROC insiders on
ROC happening.

For those who don't read beyond for-profit US media, his article demand some thinking. For example,

"Although foreign journalists and foreign scholars often describe Taiwan as a “vibrant democracy”, this
author prefers “mature democracy” because Taiwan’s democracy long ago passed from a “vibrant” stage
to a “mature” stage."

What is the difference between vibrant and mature?
Well, one is objectivity. Vibrant is subjective. Mature reflects the years of ROC voting. Of course
a mature old man could not really present himself as a vibrant and lively young man. However,
a mature democracy could elect a toddler as president if the voters choose to do so. For instance,
Trump was portrayed as America's "Toddler in Chief" by author Daniel W. Drezner.

[bmoore]

Pretty clear the PRC was trying to influence Taiwan's election. But the Taiwanese weren't fooled by the PRC's attempts to manipulate.

Subject of this thread is who tried to manipulate Taiwan's election. PRC did, so let's not try to manipulate this thread by going after US and try to

[bmoore]

On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 11:23:21 AM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:51:10 PM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "Although Taiwan is a mature democracy, there are still things to watch in the final days before the election.
> >
> > 1. Will there be another “Mayday” incident to influence voters? Some voters doubt the accuracy of the allegations that the mainland attempted to force rock band Mayday to make a statement that they support Taiwan’s unification with China. Days after this incident made the news, we only know that anonymous Taiwan officials made this claim to foreign media, and, China has denied it. The Taiwan government should either produce the evidence that China tried to blackmail Mayday, or, if the entire incident is fake news meant to interfere in the election, the persons behind it and the foreign media that published the story should apologize.
> >
> > The Mayday incident reminds many of the Wang Liqiang incident in the weeks prior to the 2020 election. Four years later, Wang’s allegations that he was paid to interfere in Taiwan’s election have yet to be proven, and Wang’s alleged “spy boss” Xiang Xin was not convicted of any crimes in Taiwan despite Taiwan authorities desperate efforts over four years.
> >
> > It is unfortunate that some people think it is OK to make false allegations of China’s interference in order to win votes. Hopefully, this kind of incident will not occur again in the final week before the election.
> > ...
> > 3. Will the United States government intervene? In an interview published on January 5, 2024, US National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby said the US hopes for free, fair and transparent elections in Taiwan.
> >
> > Although this author believes the United States has made it abundantly clear throughout the election campaign that the U.S. prefers William Lai of the Democratic Progressive Party is elected president, hopefully in the final days before the election no US government officials makes additional statements about the Taiwan election that might be election interference.
> >
> > 4. Will United States scholars or former government officials intervene? At least one U.S. scholar, Bonnie Glaser, has already played a controversial role in the election campaign. Will a prominent American arrive in Taiwan this week to influence voters? Will scholars in the U.S. say things that indicate support for William Lai? ..."
> >
> > https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20240106002820-262104?chdtv
> Ross Feingold has been a Chinatimes commentators writing with a Chinese name (方恩格) for years.
> His articles, targeting Chinese (ROC) readers, are published in both Chinese and English. I have no
> has no idea whether he got paid for his comments. I don't think his comments are syndicated. My take,
> he writes to express his American view for ROC Chinese, an American insider to other ROC insiders on
> ROC happening.
>
> For those who don't read beyond for-profit US media, his article demand some thinking. For example,

How insulting. I have studied Chinese culture and politics for decades. Shortcomings of Taiwanese democracy, real or perceived, in no way justify PRC attempts to destroy it.

> "Although foreign journalists and foreign scholars often describe Taiwan as a “vibrant democracy”, this
> author prefers “mature democracy” because Taiwan’s democracy long ago passed from a “vibrant” stage
> to a “mature” stage."
>
> What is the difference between vibrant and mature?
> Well, one is objectivity. Vibrant is subjective. Mature reflects the years of ROC voting. Of course
> a mature old man could not really present himself as a vibrant and lively young man. However,
> a mature democracy could elect a toddler as president if the voters choose to do so. For instance,
> Trump was portrayed as America's "Toddler in Chief" by author Daniel W. Drezner.

Yeah, a messed up people could elect a moron.

The PRC dictatorship is not a democracy, but they are bullies. Not debatable.

[ltlee1]

Feingold also lamented that It was unfortunate that some people think some in the DPP governemnt
was OK to make false allegations of China’s interference in order to win votes. Again, it reflects
persistant poor economic performance. Playing the China card which included frequent false
accusation, has become the standard procedure to garner votes from a fraction of the populace. Of
course, such election tactic is signs of mature but not vibrant democracy.

[bmoore]

But at least some of the allegations are true.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/11/taiwan-hits-back-at-china-for-repeated-interference-in-upcoming-elections

“I sincerely hope the majority of Taiwan compatriots recognise the extreme harm of the DPP’s ‘Taiwan independence’ line and the extreme danger of Lai Ching-te’s triggering of cross-Strait confrontation and conflict, and to make the right choice at the crossroads of cross-Strait relations,” said China’s Taiwan Affairs Office in a statement.

If elected, Lai would further promote separatist activities towards the “evil path” of independence, the statement said.

[ltlee1]

Sounds like you still don't the basics.
As an analogy: What's wrong with liberal Californians trying to ask Iowans not vote for Trump?

[bmoore]

What are the basics?

> As an analogy: What's wrong with liberal Californians trying to ask Iowans not vote for Trump?

But they are voting in the same election.

[ltlee1]

The basic fact is that both mainlanders and Taiwan islanders are one Chinse people according
to both the ROC and the PROC constitutions. ROC election is therefore this one Chinese people's
internal affairs just like whether Trump would win is supposedly one American people's
internal affair. Whether Californian democrats could vote in Iowa is irrelevant.
ROC officials could disagree with PROC officials. But that is not new.

Please reread Ross Feingold's article and decdide whether you or him is ignorant.

[bmoore]

1C2S. One system should not interfere with the other.

And given the PRC's track record and broken promises in HK, why should the Taiwanese accept the interference anyway? That would be true ignorance.

[ltlee1]

On whose say so?
If you think the PROC would allow the ROC to persecute Chinese like Israel had persecuted Palestinians,
you are quite wrong.

As a matter of fact, the world recognize the PROC as the sole legimate representation of all Chinese,
mainlanders as well Taiwan Islanders. World powers including the US, however, do object military
unification. PROC Chinese commenting on ROC election is 1) not interference, and more important
2) it is win-win if PRCO could fast talk ROC citizens into peaceful unifcation。

Again, re-read Feingold's article and learn why he is against US government as well citizens from
interfereing with ROC election.

[bmoore]

When it was pointed out that the PRC really does interfere, and Feingold is wrong, I called out the BS. Now it is being claimed that the PRC actually has a right to interfere. Hard to have an honest discussion here.

[ltlee1]

Please accept the reality the PROC and the ROC are still of the opposite sides of the Chinese Civil War.
The PROC is accepted by the world as the SOLE LEGITIMATE REPRESENTIVES of ALL CHINESE. It
is the PROC's right as well as responsibility to see to it that Taiwan does not have a Toddler or Genocider
in Chief. Be glad that the two sides are currently not on WAR footing.

[ltlee1]

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 10:15:12 AM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:

> Feingold also lamented that It was unfortunate that some people think some in the DPP governemnt
> was OK to make false allegations of China’s interference in order to win votes. Again, it reflects
> persistant poor economic performance. Playing the China card which included frequent false
> accusation, has become the standard procedure to garner votes from a fraction of the populace. Of
> course, such election tactic is signs of mature but not vibrant democracy.

And it is full of risk.
The fact is that the PROC and the ROC are the opposite sides of the Chinese Civil in which
the PROC is the winning side and hence the responsibility to unify the country either peacefully
or by force.

DPP governemnt making false allegations certainly give the impression that it would do anything
to block peaceful unification. So are US interference. To the extent that China is convinced that
peaceful unification is impossible, the only way for the PROC to fulfil its responsibility to by force.

[bmoore]

Then why do all countries deal with Taiwan as a trade partner without going through the PRC at all?

> It
> is the PROC's right as well as responsibility to see to it that Taiwan does not have a Toddler or Genocider
> in Chief.

Like Xi? Funny.

> Be glad that the two sides are currently not on WAR footing.

Well, they are.

[ltlee1]

北京涉台新兩段論呼之欲出（蘇泳霖）
https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20240218002399-262104?chdtv

"中國外交部長王毅參加一年一度的慕尼黑安全會議，歐美輿論多認為王毅此次身段柔軟，不再追求「戰狼」風格，反映了北京希望與西方改善關係的需求。不過，在台海議題上，王毅在慕尼黑的論述與以往不同，出現了一些值得關注的新訊號。在賴清德即將上任、兩岸因金門陸船事件驟然緊張的背景下，王毅在慕尼黑強調兩岸關係大方向：促統與反獨同等重要。

王毅在此次慕尼黑安全會議上的涉台論述，較具新意的話是：「要堅持一個中國的原則，就應該支持中國的和平統一。要想維持台海的和平穩定，就必須要堅決地反對台獨。」若比較陸方過往言論，前半句話比較罕見，後半句話比較常見，王毅此次重申「台獨與台海和平水火不容」，這句話正是源於2022年北京發布的第三份對台白皮書。不過，將「堅持一中」與「支持和統」進行邏輯聯結，就大陸官方在國際場合的涉台論述而言，尚屬首次。

北京向來對「一中原則」有三段論的說法，此次王毅則更進一步，提出「堅持一個中國原則就應該支持中國的和平統一」，背後有兩點考量：首先，「支持和平統一」在去年舊金山「拜習會」提出後，很快成為北京在國際、對美國等場合談台灣議題時的高頻詞，這當然是針對近年來國際社會要求「兩岸問題和平解決」的呼籲而來。北京前所未有地在國際場合強調和平統一，除了澄清不會貿然對台動武外，也意在提醒各國，兩岸終局安排只會有統一選項。

其次，將「堅持一中原則」與「支持和平統一」掛鉤，或許因為北京意識到近年來「一中」在國際社會遭到虛化。美方將「六項保證」公開納入「一中政策」，G7、北約、印太等全球或區域性峰會也聲援台灣，各國與台灣的準官方交往引發北京高度不滿。因此，王毅在此次慕尼黑安全會議上，首次拋出「要堅持一中就要支持和統、要台海和平就要反對台獨」的「新兩段論」，也就是呼籲各國奉行一中政策，不支持台獨的表態不能流於表面，而是要轉化為對中國和平統一的認同。

觀察中國大陸長期的對外、對台議程推動模式，「造輿論」始終是一個重要環節。以王毅在慕尼黑拋出涉台「新兩段論」為例，北京下一步可能推動反獨與促統並重、並聯，預先在國際社會製造輿論。賴清德上台後，除非民進黨新政府改弦更張、承認九二共識，否則大陸今後對台灣的每一個反獨動作，都希望轉化為促統的實質成果，而且大陸所有反獨促統的手段，無論是否帶有強制力，都會以「和平統一」的名義展開。

如果從上述角度思考，無論是蔡政府任內，大陸軍方打破海峽中線、機艦直逼領海領空，還是近期金門陸船事件後，陸方否認金門周邊存在「禁止、限制海域」，並出動海警巡邏，再結合王毅要求國際社會「支持和統」的新兩段論，北京對台新策略呼之欲出。（作者為智庫研究員）"