Nazism. Txt msg spEk. People who attach photos to their CVs. Transparent cars. There are some things in life that it is easy to criticize. But by far the easiest is the EU in Brussels.
Silly old, interfering old Brussels. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm as Europhilic as the next person, but I do sometimes wonder if the European legislators get together every week and say: "Right, we've interfered with fruit shapes, pet naming, the consistency of soap and the size of road signs ... what else can we overcomplicate? How about the smell of toy cars? Brilliant!"
So it was that last week the EU suggested it may require national media regulators to police Internet content for taste and decency. Just when you thought it was safe to install Movable Type.
The proposal stems from an ongoing debate over changes to the current Television Without Frontiers (TVSF) directive, which sets the agenda for Europe-wide media regulation. Along with the usual guff about TV standards, the revised directive is expected to introduce regulation for all TV programs that are broadcast across the Internet.
There are of course some pretty huge questions raised by this suggestion. First, at exactly what point does, say, a flash cartoon or a viral video become a TV program? If I include an animated gif in a blog, have I suddenly become a broadcaster? If so, the people who make those "hilarious" animated images of Popeye and Olive Oyl doing rude things to each other are going to be in real trouble. Or will the regulations only apply to commercial broadcasters who put existing programs on the net? What about the new breed of Internet-only "broadcasters" who are popping up to take advantage of the broadband revolution?
But whatever the answer to all of these huge questions turns out to be, there's an even huger question that no one in Brussels seems to be asking. Has anyone realized that the internet reaches beyond Europe? If European Internet content suddenly begins to be censored by regulators the effect will be both instant and brutal. To put it bluntly, the entire European broadband content industry will die.
What's the point in content producers trying to operate in a heavily regulated environment when they can simply go to the US where, despite heavy TV regulation, the Internet is a virtual free-for-all for video content? It's not as if Brussels -- or anyone else -- will be able to police content from outside the EU, unless it plans to copy China and put up firewalls to block "dangerous" Web sites.
When I first started thinking about all this I became quite angry. Why on Earth would a body that is supposed to be working in Europe's best interests want to destroy the livelihoods of so many of its citizens? But fortunately, the sheer ridiculous unworkability of the plan means that it is about as likely to happen as Texas joining the EU. Instead, the compromise favored by Ofcom is to introduce a ratings system for Web content, similar to the one used for films and video games.
Yet, the more I think about it, the more I think that Brussels might be right. Maybe we should go down the censorship route, no matter what problems it might cause. Just think how lovely it would be for Europe to become an oasis of niceness and reliability in the murky swamp of Internet content. Imagine the peace of mind that comes from knowing that if you watch an online broadcast created in the EU, it is being policed for accuracy and taste.
Parents around the world would be able to rest easy knowing that, by restricting their children's Web surfing to Euro sites only, their little cherubs would never stumble across anything that might corrupt them. How delightful!
And isn't that what Europe's values should be -- decency, good manners, a respect for authority? Regulating European broadband content would remind the world -- by which I mean the US -- that when it comes to stifling, nannying regulation of creativity and the media, no one does it better than the EU. Sure, our online video industry would dry up and thousands of people would lose their jobs -- but isn't that a price worth paying for an unworkable and unnecessary piece of legislation? No. Of course it isn't.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with