Chinese enough rhetoric

Considering his position as press officer at the embassy of a sometimes unpopular major world power, Zhang Jun can perhaps be forgiven for the flagrant propaganda expressed in his letter of May 19 edition of The Jakarta Post.

However, it may be in his own interests to gauge the effect of such language on a regular reader of this newspaper.

While claiming to be responding to a recent letter from the Taiwan camp (Cindy Chien, May 11), Mr. Zhang in fact succeeds in ignoring almost all arguments raised in that letter in favor of parading a few well-worn "points of view".

He does address Ms. Chien's statement that Taiwan is a sovereign country, but merely by insisting on the "fact" that there is only one China and Taiwan is an "inalienable" part of it. Believing something should be so does not constitute a fact.

He slips in the "one country, two systems" slogan and references to the intended "peaceful reunification" of China -- the last term bearing an unfortunate resemblance to the 1959 "peaceful liberation" of Tibet, in which tens of thousands of people were killed by Chinese soldiers.

His logic runs that the threat of military action on Beijing's part is necessary, because: "It will only make the peaceful reunification an impossibility if we promise not to use force."

This statement could probably be improved by NATO's spin doctors.

But even they might have trouble explaining this away: A country threatens to attack an inalienable part of itself, in order to ensure that this inalienable part is reunified, peacefully.

But I don't want to head down that dark path of political rhetoric, considering the direct interest I have in the matter is no more than would be expected from someone in say, Kashgar.

A few feathers may be ruffled in Aceh, Irian Jaya and East Timor by his next statement: "Every sovereign state has the right to use all means it thinks necessary, including military means, to safeguard its own sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Mr. Zhang's training in public opinion molding apparently neglected to take account of his intended audience.

In Beijing, readers of the China Daily and other publications are subjected to this kind of unbending rhetoric every day. But the effectiveness of this approach relies heavily on the suppression of opposing views.

Mr. Zhang should realize that barging ahead with an obviously biased viewpoint in spite of the facts -- facts that are readily available here -- is not the way to get people on side.

OLIVER CROWDER

Jakarta