A Vanishing Debate
Late last month, a debate between Taiwanese journalists and China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) spokesperson over World War II historical narratives itself became part of the cross-strait narrative war. The debate lasted 13 minutes, according to Taiwanese journalists’ reports as well as our review of a recording of the press conference. But “full transcripts” (全文實錄) provided by the TAO and the People’s Daily removed significant chunks of the conversation, including journalist questions about the Flying Tigers, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), and the Republic of China’s constitution.
Cooperation and friendship between the U.S. and China during World War II became a prominent narrative in Chinese media during Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States last month. During the visit, President Donald Trump praised the “Flying Tigers,” the American airmen who fought alongside the Republic of China air force during the war. And an “eight-point consensus” released by the Chinese side following the summit characterized the U.S. and China as allies that “fought side by side” (並肩作戰) to win the war.
The debate broke out at a routine TAO press conference on September 30 when Taiwanese media outlets raised questions to spokesperson Zhang Han (張晗) about the PRC’s narratives about the war. China Times journalist Lan Hsiao-wei (藍孝威) first pointed out that the PRC had not yet been established, and the Flying Tigers had fought alongside the ROC’s army, not the Red Army.
The PRC was established in 1949 following the victory of the Chinese Communist Party in the Chinese Civil War, four years after the end of World War II. The defeated ROC government, led by the Kuomintang (KMT), fled to Taiwan, which the PRC still claims as its sovereign territory. But the World War II victory against the Japanese has become an important narrative for China as it sought international legitimacy.
“The information in your question does not correspond to the facts,” Zhang said in response to the China Times’ questions. She later added, “The war victory is the shared historical memory of cross-strait compatriots.” Taiwan’s ET Today journalist Jen I-fang (任以芳) also followed up on Lan’s question, raising Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council’s characterization of the “consensus” as an act of “disseminating the wrong historical narrative.” “I have already set out our firm position in the previous question,” Zhang said, referring to her response to Lan.
The exchange about the “Flying Tigers,” however, is not included in the “full transcripts.” Also missing are Jen’s questions regarding Chiang Kai-shek’s role in the war and a question from Taiwan’s national news agency on the continued implementation of the ROC Constitution. Instead, the questions compiled in the “transcript” largely focus on Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council’s response to the “consensus” question.
That an official press conference’s “transcript” — a term that should be taken lightly in the PRC media context — was heavily edited before its official release comes as little surprise. China’s “public opinion guidance” (輿論導向), its term for information control, extends beyond simple censorship, setting a narrative to guide state media coverage before reporting even begins. This particular case, thanks to Taiwanese journalists’ coverage, allows observers to see clearly the extent to which a single event can be edited and repackaged according to authorities’ narrative priorities.
