Taiwanese writers go to the world

Last month, Zoe Strimpel, a columnist for the famous British newspaper The Telegraph, came to Taiwan. Unfortunately, her May 15 article ends with the condescending headline “What War? When I visited recently, Taiwanese residents seemed to blissfully deny that fact.” Which is a shame, because the headline matched the overall tone of the article No, she discusses Taiwan effusively in her essay.

What she said was “So, as you might imagine, the atmosphere in this country of 23 million people is worrisome (given the threat of force from the Chinese military). However, having just spent a week in Taipei, I can tell You, that’s not the case. Daily life in the city is pleasant. The people here are friendly and generous, and the atmosphere is peaceful, even sleepy.”

Obviously, the title may not have been written by the author. It is also clear that the Daily Telegraph’s headline writer believes that the only way to portray Taiwan in a way that is relevant to British readers is by describing Taiwan as a “danger zone” and that Taiwanese are “passive” to the Chinese narrative. destiny. This assumption is wrong. Taiwan is a living negation of the Chinese Communist Party with the same values ​​as the British readers.

With a little imagination and knowledge of Taiwan, British newsrooms can easily fabricate stories about Taiwan that promote these shared values ​​that emphasize Taiwan’s daily resistance. That’s how British reporting has described Ukraine’s denial of Russia for years.

This week, the same author published another travel article in The Daily Telegraph. While the headline is innocuous—”‘We Know, But We’re Not Afraid’: Holidays at the Next Center of Geopolitical Tensions”—the subtitle has an even more distasteful frame—”Threat of Chinese invasion makes Taiwan a A trip in the moment.” An extremely unpleasant and problematic frame.

However, this case is complicated because the subheading quotes the author.

There is nothing wrong with headline writers quoting their authors directly.

So the problem is first of all with the lines written by the writer himself. It raises some interesting questions about the utility and value of “fly-in-fly-out travel writers” in Taiwan.

If writers are going to write about Taiwan in a negative light, should they be prevented from traveling to Taiwan? For free and open liberal democracies, this is impossible.

Another question is whether such “fly-in-fly-out” travel articles have a net positive effect on Taiwan. I think it does.

Taiwan’s continued exclusion from the United Nations and its affiliated organizations means that it is harder than it would otherwise be for Taiwan to reach out to the world and build consensus with like-minded nations. Tourism productions like these help Taiwan increase its popularity and international personality.

Taiwan’s visibility in the international media is crucial.

However, “travel writers,” of which these two articles are two examples, must be distinguished from “non-professional political reporters” who fly in and out of Taiwan to cover a particular story. They are disparagingly referred to in the industry as “parachute reporters” — lacking the necessary regional or local expertise and often recreating mistakes or biases to produce an imperfect and sometimes problematic analysis of Taiwanese politics.

However, providing political analysis is not the purpose of a travel writer. The main task of travel writers is to provide descriptive details—sights, smells, shopping, culture, food—that add texture to the places they visit, while making cultural and social observations. Politics and history are often included.

However, they are not the main thrust.

The British Telegraph readers don’t know enough about Taiwan. Whenever they encountered Taiwan, it was probably through TV or newspaper news reports about military exercises, fighter jet invasions, or U.S.-China tensions. Sadly, none of these reports provided much information about Taiwan, the place, or the Taiwanese.

Travel articles can help fill this information gap. They put Taiwan on the mind map of British readers who might be curious to read about a place they hear about in the news, but not willing to read a 3,000-word article about Taiwan’s path to democracy; or the secrets behind its economic miracle. Light travel pieces can deliver key messages, add color to gray areas and bring the place to life.

This is very important. Britain’s foreign policy depends in part on the perception of its voting public. The Daily Telegraph’s Taiwan travel article has raised Taiwan’s profile among the British public, whose approval the British government relies on to shape its foreign policy.

A further criticism of Stringpel’s article was that she wrote that Taiwan’s “loose liberal democracy and highly functioning, nuanced capitalism” made Taiwan “a bit like Denmark, but more exotic.” This comment feels dated, if not Orientalist.

Stringpel’s readers are predominantly white, middle-aged, and middle-class. They probably never visited Asia.

Stringer is also a middle-aged, middle-class white British man whose observations mirror her experiences. Stringpel places his own experiences within the narrative in a way that resonates with the audience. She paints a fascinating picture of Taiwan for readers and encourages them to visit. Foot massage, nail spa and hair spa “open till 1am”. People are “very nice”.

Taiwan has an “enviable health system, efficient public services, delicious food and diverse landscapes”. This is an idealized social wish list for a particular environment in central England.

These types of travel pieces are not without criticism. Superficial, superficial, and even condescending as they may be, they do an excellent job of presenting Taiwan’s personality to an information-poor public that may only know the country through the prism of military drills and U.S.-China tensions.

After Stringpel returned to China, the Daily Telegraph published three articles about Taiwan. They are all sympathetic and pro-Taiwan. They should be commended. What needs to stop, however, is the ‘impending war’ and ‘denial’ framing of the Taiwan story in UK headlines. These are unnecessary and only contribute to the narrative that the CCP sees Taiwan as a dangerous place and that the Taiwanese are passively accepting China’s fate. British readers deserve better.

Daniel McIntyre is a research associate at the Academia Sinica Institute of Law. He is the author of the weekly magazines “World Taiwan”, “Taiwan World” on Substack.