6
// Blog Post UoN Blogs (http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/) / China Policy Institute Blog (http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute) University of Nottingham > Blogs > China Policy Institute Blog > Occupy Taiwan > Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement April 4, 2014, by Editor (http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/author/ldzjls/) Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement Written by J. Michael Cole. In the absence of knowledge, fall back on conspiracies. This is what many foreign analysts and the Taiwanese government have done as they try to explain — and more importantly deal with — the activists’ occupation of the Legislative Yuan (LY), which is now on its eighteenth day. According to the official narrative, the Sunflower Movement, which on the evening of March 18 began an unprecedented occupation of the legislature (http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/taiwaneseoccupylegislatureoverchinapact/) , came of out nowhere. After months of circus and the occasional skirmish on the legislative floor over the controversial CrossStrait Services Trade Agreement (CSSTA) signed with China in June 2013, young activists acting as proxies of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) climbed over the fence, slipped by the police, and invaded the LY. The student leaders and academics who turned the legislative floor, and then the entire area surrounding the LY, into a sea of placards, banners and posters, were but the continuation of a sinister DPP policy whose sole intent was to prevent the passage of the trade agreement. Incapable of countering the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which enjoyed a majority of seats in the legislature, the DPP had resorted to undemocratic means and “mob role” to try to defeat government policy. For many, the Sunflower Movement had been too spontaneous and organized to not have had a structure, prompting one KMT legislator to use the unfortunate example of alQaeda to describe the protesters. Hence the belief, held by government officials, the media and foreign observers, that the DPP had orchestrated the whole thing. Only the main opposition party, with its contacts and financial resources, could have achieved such a feat, which eventually led to the occupation (http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/riotpolicecrackdownontaiwaneseprotesters/) , albeit brief, of the Executive Yuan (EY) next door. Or so the story went. But there’s a problem with this theory — it’s completely wrong. In fact, the entire DPP apparatus could be thrown behind bars tomorrow and this would have almost zero effect on the movement. Failing to understand this results in a failure to understand just how resilient and deeprooted the movement is. Taiwanese government officials and the local media should have known better, but for selfserving or ideological reasons, or simply because they were too lazy to see the signs, they chose to ignore the facts. For their part, foreign media and academics have been getting it wrong because they were either not paying attention or were poorly served by journalists and editors who neglected important developments on the island. Most were notorious for their lack of interest in, and curiosity about, the mobilization of civil society, whose efforts in the past 24 months had been snowballing. For those of us who covered the constellation of activist movements that agitated during that period, the events of March 18 and the subsequent crisis were almost inevitable. The occupation was but the logical next step to mounting pressures and dissatisfaction with a government that on a plethora of issues had simply been ignoring democratic procedures and, in some instances, the law. A few among us, academics and journalists, sought to alert the rest of the world to this coming crisis, only to be told by foreign editors that domestic events on the island were too “inside baseball.” For reasons that ought to be explored in another essay, with a few rare exceptions American media and academics were particularly uninterested in what was going on in Taiwan. Their European counterparts were somewhat more curious, which perhaps reflects a stronger tradition of rebellion in the Old World, or an understanding that Taiwan’s history did not end when the island democratized in the late 1980s. It’s little wonder then that when U.S. experts on Taiwan weighed in on the Sunflower crisis, they had no idea what they were talking about and were forced to rely on official information and fall back on conspiracy theories.

China Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

China Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

Citation preview

Page 1: China Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

6/15/2015 China Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking-the-myths-about-taiwans-sunflower-movement/ 1/6

// Blog PostUoN Blogs (http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/) / China Policy Institute Blog

(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute)

University of Nottingham > Blogs > China Policy Institute Blog > Occupy Taiwan > Debunking the Myths About

Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

April 4, 2014, by Editor (http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/author/ldzjls/)

Debunking the Myths AboutTaiwan’s Sunflower Movement

Written by J. Michael Cole.

In the absence of knowledge, fall back on conspiracies. This is what many foreign analysts and the Taiwanesegovernment have done as they try to explain — and more importantly deal with — the activists’ occupation of theLegislative Yuan (LY), which is now on its eighteenth day.

According to the official narrative, the Sunflower Movement, which on the evening of March 18 began an unprecedentedoccupation of the legislature (http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/taiwanese­occupy­legislature­over­china­pact/),came of out nowhere. After months of circus and the occasional skirmish on the legislative floor over the controversialCross­Strait Services Trade Agreement (CSSTA) signed with China in June 2013, young activists acting as proxies of theopposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) climbed over the fence, slipped by the police, and invaded the LY. Thestudent leaders and academics who turned the legislative floor, and then the entire area surrounding the LY, into a seaof placards, banners and posters, were but the continuation of a sinister DPP policy whose sole intent was to preventthe passage of the trade agreement. Incapable of countering the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which enjoyed amajority of seats in the legislature, the DPP had resorted to undemocratic means and “mob role” to try to defeatgovernment policy.

For many, the Sunflower Movement had been too spontaneous and organized to not have had a structure, promptingone KMT legislator to use the unfortunate example of al­Qaeda to describe the protesters. Hence the belief, held bygovernment officials, the media and foreign observers, that the DPP had orchestrated the whole thing. Only the mainopposition party, with its contacts and financial resources, could have achieved such a feat, which eventually led to theoccupation (http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/riot­police­crack­down­on­taiwanese­protesters/), albeit brief, of theExecutive Yuan (EY) next door.

Or so the story went.

But there’s a problem with this theory — it’s completely wrong. In fact, the entire DPP apparatus could be thrownbehind bars tomorrow and this would have almost zero effect on the movement. Failing to understand this results in afailure to understand just how resilient and deep­rooted the movement is.

Taiwanese government officials and the local media should have known better, but for self­serving or ideologicalreasons, or simply because they were too lazy to see the signs, they chose to ignore the facts. For their part, foreignmedia and academics have been getting it wrong because they were either not paying attention or were poorly servedby journalists and editors who neglected important developments on the island. Most were notorious for their lack ofinterest in, and curiosity about, the mobilization of civil society, whose efforts in the past 24 months had beensnowballing.

For those of us who covered the constellation of activist movements that agitated during that period, the events ofMarch 18 and the subsequent crisis were almost inevitable. The occupation was but the logical next step to mountingpressures and dissatisfaction with a government that on a plethora of issues had simply been ignoring democraticprocedures and, in some instances, the law. A few among us, academics and journalists, sought to alert the rest of theworld to this coming crisis, only to be told by foreign editors that domestic events on the island were too “insidebaseball.” For reasons that ought to be explored in another essay, with a few rare exceptions American media andacademics were particularly uninterested in what was going on in Taiwan. Their European counterparts were somewhatmore curious, which perhaps reflects a stronger tradition of rebellion in the Old World, or an understanding thatTaiwan’s history did not end when the island democratized in the late 1980s.

It’s little wonder then that when U.S. experts on Taiwan weighed in on the Sunflower crisis, they had no idea what theywere talking about and were forced to rely on official information and fall back on conspiracy theories.

Page 2: China Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

6/15/2015 China Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking-the-myths-about-taiwans-sunflower-movement/ 2/6

A prime example were comments by David Brown, a SAIS scholar and board member of the American Institute inTaiwan (AIT). Responding to an open letter by DPP Legislator Hsiao Bi­khim, Brown had very few positive things to sayabout the movement. “It is remarkable that the students reacted so quickly that same evening [March 18] to occupythe LY,” Brown told The Nelson Report on March 28. “The KMT has accused the DPP of instigating this action, anaccusation that many believe. Unnamed DPP politicians were reportedly on the scene later that evening; and the partyendorsed the action the following day, and then encouraged all its members to support the students’ illegal occupation.”

Brown continued: “So rather than have the DPP LY caucus responsible for continuing to block consideration of the[CS]STA, wasn’t it in the DPP’s interest to have students play that role? […] the DPP will go to whatever lengths arenecessary to block the majority when their key interests are involved or when it suits the DPP’s election mobilizationgoals to exploit issues for political advantage.”

Unsurprisingly, Brown’s comments sparked very different reactions(http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201403310017.aspx) on both sides of the equation. Pro­government media inTaiwan splashed them as evidence of AIT, and by rebound U.S. government, disapproval of the student­led movement.For the other side, this was either proof that Brown was a paid agent of the KMT or that AIT had a secret agendaagainst the DPP. In reality, both sides were wrong. Brown was not speaking on behalf of AIT, as he is only a boardmember, nor was he a hatchet man on the Ma Ying­jeou government payroll. He’d simply involved himself into a verycomplex issue without fully understanding its context. And who could blame him, given that the media he likely reliedupon for his information about Taiwan often couldn’t tell the difference between the Legislative Yuan and the ExecutiveYuan? However, sources tell me that Brown hadn’t set foot in Taiwan in about seven years, sadly a not unusual absencefor academics that are considered experts on the island’s politics.

So there was no dark U.S. government plot to paint the Sunflower Movement in a bad light, though that isn’t to say thatWashington doesn’t have its biases and preferences, as evidenced by the National Security Council’s rather crude leak(http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b591c26a­e046­11e0­ba12­00144feabdc0.html#axzz2xuGOWQLr) to the FinancialTimes during a September 2011 visit by Tsai Ying­wen, the then DPP’s candidate in the following year’s presidentialelection, or inappropriate remarks (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/world/asia/former­united­states­envoy­remarks­cause­uproar­in­taiwan.html?_r=0) by former AIT director Douglas Paal to pan­blue media during the sameelection. In fact, it could be argued that the underlying biases against the DPP in Washington help reinforce perceptionsthat tend to reinforce their views on complex issues such as the current occupation of the LY. Unfortunately for theSunflower Movement and its supporters, this cognitive slant is a handicap, as they tend to be put in the same basket asthe DPP.

A few days later, Alan Romberg of the Stimson Center also entered the fray with comments of his own, which werereproduced in The Nelson Report on April 1. While somewhat more receptive to the movement, Romberg neverthelesshad issues with their actions.

“[O]ne should take the students’ concerns seriously and not simply dismiss them. The fact that students feel stronglyenough to take a visible stance is commendable and an encouraging sign of the strength of Taiwan’s democracy,” hewrote. But then came the criticism: “At the same time, while, as an American I very much respect free speech, I am notin favor of activities that disrupt the government, either in the LY or the EY, and I regret any suggestion that thestudents have been encouraged to proceed along that course.”

Like Brown, Romberg appeared to be commenting on issues that he only partially understood. In his case, what wasmissing was the context in which the occupation had occurred, which one could only understand if he was aware of the24 months that preceded the occupation. Throughout that period, every peaceful and democratic means had been triedby civil society, academics, NGOs and lawyers to deal with the problematic CSSTA and several other issues, from forcedevictions to the mistreatment of army conscripts. For their rational and non­occupational efforts, they were rewardedwith government contempt, farcical public hearings, police shields, court summons, and fines.

Again, unless Romberg was paying attention to Taiwan’s underground and Chinese­language media — where the onlyconsistent coverage about Taiwan’s increasingly ebullient social forces was taking place — or was here physically toobserve the clashes and disappointments, he could not have known that the next step, short of capitulation, had to beescalation. There were already signs that this was happening. On Jan. 25 a 41­year­old truck driver crashed his 35­tonne truck into the Presidential Office. Writing of the incident(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/01/26/a­rude­awakening­for­taiwans­presidential­office/)for the CPI Blog, this author concluded by saying, “[W]hile walls can be erected to ensure better protection [at thePresidential Office], they will do absolutely nothing to resolve the widening chasm between those in power and thegrowing number of ordinary Taiwanese who have lost faith in the ability of their government to rule their country.” Thiswas a little less than two months prior to the occupation of the LY.

The executive and the legislative branches were no longer working; the mechanism of democratic governance wasfailing the public who had entrusted officials with its operations. This included the very DPP that is alleged to havemasterminded the student occupation, which in reality could not have cared less for the efforts of civil society in recentyears. The mishandling of the CSSTA and the fears that the pact awakened among politically aware young Taiwanesewas the spark that set the prairie on fire. To outsiders who hadn’t been paying attention, it looked like a spontaneouseruption of madness by students who had nothing better to do than to interrupt the operations of government. Inreality, their actions were a wake­up call long in the making, following many screams that were simply ignored by theworld, including researchers who make Taiwan their expertise, and media that were failing to connect the dots for them,as this author wrote in his parting shot (http://fareasternpotato.blogspot.tw/2013/11/failing­to­connect­dots.html)from the Taipei Times in November 2013.

Now their call has been heard, and it is important that the international community fully understand what it is andwhere it comes from. Facile conspiracy theories and the lazy regurgitation of state propaganda will not do and are thesurest way to ensure that the problem won’t go away. It’s time for Taiwan experts and international media to do theirhomework again.

J Michael Cole is a Taipei­based analyst and writer. His personal blog is here(http://fareasternpotato.blogspot.tw/) and he tweets @jmichaelcole1 (https://twitter.com/JMichaelCole1). Michaelis a CPI blog Regular Contributor and Non­Resident Senior Fellow in the China Policy Institute. Image by J. Michael Cole.

Page 3: China Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

6/15/2015 China Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking-the-myths-about-taiwans-sunflower-movement/ 3/6

(#) (#) (#) (#) (#)

Previous Post

Revisiting China’s Non­Interference PolicyTowards Intrastate Wars(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/03/revisiting­chinas­non­interference­policy­towards­intrastate­wars/)

Next Post

China’s principle of intervention(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/06/chinas­principle­of­intervention/)

Posted in Occupy Taiwan (http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/category/occupy­taiwan/)

Taiwan (http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/category/taiwan/)

Taiwan Friday (http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/category/taiwan­friday/)

Comments

Post a comment

Jerome Besson April 8, 2014 at 9:40 pm

In years to come, this Formosan youth uprising will be construed as the watershed event that prevented aderelict Formosa Maru drifting further west in the fog of ambiguity towards the treacherous shoals of the Chineseeastern seaboard. At dawn, all sunflowers face the rising sun.

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=660972#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­660972) Quote (#)

Michael Fagan (http://www.mirrorsignalmove.blogspot.com) April 7, 2014 at 7:11 pm

On the particular charge which Cole rebuffs here – that the Sunflower protests are a proxy of the DPP – there isa further point to be answered, which is that however much at arm’s length the students have kept the DPP fortactical reasons, there is nevertheless an obvious ideological affinity between them. Who among the DPP’sleaders since 2000 would not have redrawn Taiwan’s constitutional system along the lines proposed by Lin FeiFan recently, if only they could have pulled it off? Surely none.

What worries me is the ideological terms of the broader Sunflower movement and what these signify.

Far too often the salient point of protest against the government’s various transgressions over the past fouryears has not been that these transgressions involved violations of property rights, though that is an aspectcommon to all of them, but that these transgressions were carried out by the government at the behest of “therich”, or of “the corporations”, or of “Chinese interests”. That they were all violations of the first principle ofcapitalism, private property, has been neglected.

To take just one particular case (the Dapu case in Miaoli last year), which was as obvious a case of governmenttheft of private property one could find, the need to protest was presented as a matter of “social justice” ratherthan just plain justice, qua a defence of property rights. Consequentially, the protest leaders did not call for theLand Expropriation Act to be repealed, but only for it to be amended. For all their talk of human “rights” it seemsthat, when push comes to shove, they really just think that rights can be replaced with politically contingentpermissions. So much for defending the poor.

In sum, I am as concerned with what the Sunflower protesters are for as what they are against. Consider, forinstance, the obvious cravings of this (http://kanruwu.tumblr.com/post/81601031560/open­letter­to­the­sunflower­movement) individual.

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=659552#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­659552) Quote (#)

Page 4: China Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

6/15/2015 China Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking-the-myths-about-taiwans-sunflower-movement/ 4/6

Ming­Syuan Jhong April 7, 2014 at 6:03 pm

As a Taiwanese student study U.S. history and some U.S. foreign relationship, I can see why Taiwan is notparticularly attractive to the U.S. audiences. First, Taiwan doesn’t have natural resources, like Central Asia.There is no reason for U.S. to pay attention to the Island in the long term. In terms of military value, sinceChinese held so many U.S. bonds. American need to worry about their financial crisis more than anything elseand there is no U.S. military base on the Island. There is no reason for U.S. military intelligences to payattention to Taiwan, either. For U.S. civilians, Taiwan is not a Third World country. Taiwan have fairly good socialwelfare, health care system, and strong local charity groups. There is no room for Western Charity to set theirfoot in Taiwan or lobbying for Taiwan. Finally, for U.S. Chinese scholars, Taiwan is too Westernized. It doesn’tserve the role of criticizing U.S. imperialism. In other words, Taiwan don’t have academic value.

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=659512#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­659512) Quote (#)

Nathan W. Novak (http://eastasiaobserver.wordpress.com/) April 6, 2014 at 6:36 am

I agree with much of what the author contributes here. But, as an American, I can also, I think, humbly add alittle more.

This is not merely an issue of reporting. It is a mindset. The American “fireman”–I don’t use the term“policeman” because policemen have numerous jobs beyond quelling disturbances–is just that: his mindset is, ifhe isn’t rescuing kittens from trees, looking for smoke. For the average American, who can’t seem to get thatTaiwan is not Thailand, Taiwan is barely worth a blip. For the American who knows Taiwan, Taiwan is much morethan that, but we are a very small minority; and if one is not a Taiwanese­American, one is merely being aHemingway (and deserves castigation for it) in joining Taiwan’s fight.

The American mindset for those who have studied Taiwan and entered politics is quite simple: the issue whetherTaiwan and China drag the United States into a shooting war. The Chinese are winning the battle for manyreasons, not the least of which are a) using American fear to keep the “Taiwan dog” on a leash as it did in thesecond George W. Bush administration, and b) the pro­China president of Taiwan, Ma­Ying­jeou, as the exampleof “warming relations.” When was the last time that a relatively high­profile book was published in the UnitedStates that dealt with Taiwan as Taiwan and not as part of a cross­Strait problem? Books are written forreasons–especially by those who have the ear of certain American political groups. This should be indicative.

Simply put, for the American “fireman,” Taiwan is just one puff of smoke amid a whole world of smoke puffs,some of them smoldering, and some of them raging infernos. Everything having to do with Taiwan is viewedthrough this lens. I highly doubt the American government asks much of AIT in the first place–unless anythingthe Taiwan government does upsets China. Passports, visas, other daily routines aside, I seriously doubt theU.S. government asks AIT officials to go out and poke around. They ask for daily briefs and skim them for“China’s reaction to” such and such a statement, such and such a policy.

One person stated to me the other day (a local) and another today (a foreigner) that “AIT sucks”–one inMandarin (你們那個AIT很爛,爛到不行), one in English. I replied to both: No, AIT doesn’t suck. The U.S.government does. It doesn’t want diplomats and people who understand the situation on the ground; it wantsfiremen.

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=657742#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­657742) Quote (#)

J. Michael Cole April 7, 2014 at 6:47 am

Thanks for the observations Nathan. Lots to agree with. If I may, I did subsequently turn my sights onthe institution of U.S. government (and other diplomats) in a related blog entry, which can be accessedhere: http://fareasternpotato.blogspot.tw/2014/04/to­understand­world­you­must­engage­it.html (http://fareasternpotato.blogspot.tw/2014/04/to­understand­world­you­must­engage­it.html)

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=658872#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­658872) Quote (#)

Page 5: China Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

6/15/2015 China Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking-the-myths-about-taiwans-sunflower-movement/ 5/6

View the reply to J. Michael Cole's comment

Eric Gulotty April 5, 2014 at 2:16 pm

I very much appreciate all of the work you do here, and usually agree with everything you write. I am troubledhowever, about the assessment of David Brown’s response to the open letter written by DPP Congresswoman 蕭美琴. Mr. Brown’s face was spattered all over the local newspapers prominently. His opinion was put on the newsheadline tickers of most of the KMT friendly media. I have a hard time believing that this was not a concertedeffort to discredit the movement. I have a very hard time believing that an experienced foreign service officerwould write such a letter with no proviso as to whom it may be shared with. I have yet to see Mr. Brown putforth a statement regretting that he made such ill­informed statements either. I think he, like many foreigners ofa certain age, like to think that “those people” in Taiwan wouldn’t know any better. I specifically asked the AIT ifhe was paid, and that as a Board member he should be responsible enough to say he wasn’t. Letters to thirdparties don’t accidently show up in almost every local newspaper, especially with a person’s picture next to it.Someone puts them there. You might be kind enough to believe he didn’t know what he was doing, but I’m notbuying it one bit.

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=656742#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­656742) Quote (#)

MAnthony April 5, 2014 at 4:36 am

“‘Narratives’ that denounce and disapprove of people…are spreading ominously in our society. The newnarratives that ought to challenge them have yet to become free of the old narratives that still remain withinthem. ”

– Genichiro Takahashi, professor of Japanese literature, Meiji Gakuin University (quoted in Asahi Shimbin4/5/2014)

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=656012#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­656012) Quote (#)

Michael Fagan (http://www.mirrorsignalmove.blogspot.com) April 5, 2014 at 4:16 am

Perhaps the concern over what someone from the Stimson Centre says or someone from the AIT says isoverblown. If their pronouncements are the source of information for “decision­makers” in Washington, thenthose decision­makers are simply not doing their jobs properly. If that is the case, then why worry what they willdecide anyway – if they can’t be arsed to keep an eye on Taiwan in the first place, then there would seem littlereason to think they’d take Taiwanese interests seriously.

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=655982#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­655982) Quote (#)

Chi Hsu April 4, 2014 at 6:46 pm

The author spends the entire first half of the article saying that other commentators failed to notice “what wasgoing on” in Taiwan, then in a brief sentence states:

“Again, unless Romberg was paying attention to Taiwan’s underground and Chinese­language media — wherethe only consistent coverage about Taiwan’s increasingly ebullient social forces was taking place — or was herephysically to observe the clashes and disappointments, he could not have known that the next step, short ofcapitulation, had to be escalation.”

Page 6: China Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

6/15/2015 China Policy Institute Blog » Debunking the Myths About Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking-the-myths-about-taiwans-sunflower-movement/ 6/6

No details are provided, only an example of a truck driver driving into the Presidential Office. The remainder ofthe article fails to address or elaborate in detail on what these clashes and disappointments were andpresupposes that the readers will accept his claims at face value. There is also no comprehensive dissection ofthe introductory theory about political orchestration of the initial occupation of the LY other than another blanketstatement that “it is completely wrong.”

I read the author’s blog and it is a great source of information for my learning about Taiwanese politics, but thisarticle, whilst no doubt required a lot of heart and effort to write, unfortunately falls short of being satisfactory inproviding answers.

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=655312#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­655312) Quote (#)

J. Michael Cole April 5, 2014 at 7:08 pm

Dear Chi Hsu: Point taken. This article was already about 2,000 words long. I indeed assumed a certainamount of knowledge about the crisis and its antecedents on the part of the reader. As I have writtenextensively about those elsewhere, I didn’t see the need, nor did I have the space, to go into such detailsagain.

Reply (/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/?replytocom=657112#respond) Link(http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/04/04/debunking­the­myths­about­taiwans­sunflower­movement/#comment­657112) Quote (#)