Articles fail to shed light on issue 
WONG HOONG HOOI
(Straits Times Reader's Forum)

WHAT has one come to expect of Richard Halloran's articles on China-Taiwan 
relations? Well, for one thing, they are not about China-Taiwan relations. 
They crow and gloat about US military supremacy, which no one doubts. 

They repeat the piety that the US will intervene if force were used to end 
any bid at separation, although it appears increasingly that this guarantee 
extends to a de facto Taiwanese declaration of independence.

What they don't do is promote our understanding of the current dynamics of 
the Taiwan issue. Instead, what passes for journalism is just round after 
round of Anglo-Saxon China-bashing. Examples abound in his latest piece, 
'China-Taiwan row: US shows air and sea might in Pacific' (ST, Aug 7).

'Knowledgeable American officials said Mr Chen ... had no intention of 
declaring independence.' What did 'knowledgeable' American officials say 
about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction? 

'There is not much new in the Chinese harangue except for its intensity.' 
So, the Chinese 'harangue' while the Americans make their position known.

'The immediate cause for Chinese belligerence is the negotiations between 
Washington and Taipei over (the sale of arms)'. China's anger at an arms 
sale it sees as threatening its sovereignty is belligerence. America's 
threat to use force to defend separatists in another sovereign state isn't. 

'... the government-controlled Chinese press has thundered that the Taiwan 
Relations Act ... was a ridiculous law.' Government control of the press 
in another country is the subject of ridicule but an American press that 
shapes opinion with a pronounced ethnocentric slant is the epitome of freedom 
of expression. China's press 'thunders' while America's takes a firm stand.

There is room for a range of well-thought-out views. However, Mr Halloran's 
writings have no place in a newspaper like The Straits Times.