One of the main components of media propaganda is the reporting of events with a false context. That false context can be set either by a blatant lie or simply not providing the actual context. Not providing the actual context is a more subtle means of delivering the lie without being held responsible for it and it is the favourite technique of liberal media eager to preserve its reputation for objectivity.
As the anti-Chinese agenda of the US is cranked up some of the the media outlets of the U.K. have been slow in adjusting to the requirements of the country’s ultimate masters.
We see this in the reporting of the incidents around Taiwan over the past month. The BBC reported a story of Chinese jets in Taiwan air space on 6 September last. In the midst of that particular report there was a critical context-setting piece of information. which had the effect of neutralising its propaganda impact. It pointed out that the Taiwanese government was measuring air intrusions on the basis of a definition of its air space that had no standing in international law when it revealed that:
“An air defence identification zone is an area outside of a country’s territory and national airspace but where foreign aircraft are still identified, monitored, and controlled in the interest of national security.
It is self-declared and technically remains international airspace.”
Since then the BBC seems to have been made aware of its “error” as this morning the latest report of this continuing story pointedly omits the context it had provided in its 6 September report of a similar Taiwanese described incident. The result: the reader is left with a less ambiguous conclusion of Chinese aggression.
On their Outside Source on the News Channel at 7pm tonight the BBC was very careful about stating that the Chinese planes were operating in international airspace.
However, what the BBC omitted on that programme (and as far as I can see omit on their website) is that the official UK position is that Taiwan is Chinese territory – see https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/uc574iv/574m15.htm
UK POSITION ON THE STATUS OF TAIWAN
3. HMG recognised the Government of the PRC in 1950. We retained a British Consulate in Tamsui outside Taipei, accredited to the provincial authorities of Taiwan, until 1972. At that time, an agreement was signed with the PRC allowing for an exchange of Ambassadors with China. The Consulate was withdrawn at that time and since then there has been no official UK representation in Taiwan. Under the terms of the 1972 agreement with China, HMG acknowledged the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and recognised the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China. This remains the basis of our relations with Taiwan. We do not deal with the Taiwan authorities on a government to government basis, and we avoid any act which could be taken to imply recognition.
And the same is true of the US, as has been restated by the Biden administration – see State Department website at https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/ in a section entitled US relations with Taiwan:
The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. …
The United States does not support Taiwan independence.
Given that both the UK and the US regard Taiwan as Chinese territory, how can they assert that it would be contrary to international law for Chinese planes to fly through Taiwanese airspace (which it hasn’t done, at least not recently) or indeed to overfly Taiwan? More fundamentally, how can there be such a thing as Taiwanese airspace, since Taiwan isn’t a state but is part of China?