It was pleasing to see actress and UNICEF goodwill ambassador Mia Farrow put some pressure on Chinese diplomats a few weeks ago when, in view of the Darfur atrocities and China's loathsome role in Sudan, she asked film director Steven Spielberg a rather direct question.
The question was: Wouldn't Spielberg be a latter-day Leni Riefenstahl if he continued to work on the opening and closing ceremonies in Beijing?
This is something we also asked some time ago, and it would be interesting to hear a direct response to the question from Spielberg himself. How interesting a direct response it might be, too, given that Spielberg's indirect response in recent days had a startling effect: The image of Darfur and the butchery presided over there by Beijing's allies in Khartoum has suddenly, magically -- like in a movie -- become an issue for the Chinese.
Spielberg undoubtedly has zero tolerance of genocidal behavior or people who espouse it. But is this wonderful director -- and long-time financier of Holocaust oral histories -- prepared to cut deals with politicians who gain from it? Possibly, but surely only if he were ignorant of China's history, society and behavior in developing countries.
In this, Spielberg would not be alone. Hein Verbruggen, the chairman of the coordination commission of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), recently told a Beijing audience that: "We have ... such an amount of requests from countries that don't ask for anything better than to be part of the [Olympic] torch relay that I have problems to imagine that a country does not want the torch relay.
"And that goes for Taiwan too. I have problems believing that there is a country that would willingly refuse that to their population," he said.
That's the point. Taiwan is not treated as a country by the IOC because China dictates this to be so. And Verbruggen seems so entranced by the mythology of the torch that he fails to understand why a Taiwanese government might block its entry or, indeed, that somewhere on Earth there are people who couldn't care less about the Olympics.
Almost surprisingly, the Democratic Progressive Party this week saw sense and rejected any route in which the torch proceeds directly between the two countries, including Hong Kong and Macau. This came in response to the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, which disgraced itself by not standing up to Chinese propaganda when it supported a route from Taiwan to China via Hong Kong.
But this might not be enough. If -- when -- the Chinese use the Olympics to cast aspersions on Taiwan's self-determination and democracy, then the government must go to the next level.
Steven Spielberg applied his principles to influence the Chinese on their misconduct in Africa, and should be admired for doing so.
But if the IOC cannot likewise learn about what is happening in the Taiwan Strait and change its mercenary, patronizing tune with regard to Taiwan in the months to come, then it bodes ill. China will use the Olympics as a buttress for its autocracy, and Taiwan will be subjected to the same old propaganda, but at a level of hysteria and on a scope that only the Chinese can pull off.
Mischievous or stupendously ignorant: Verbruggen can only be one or the other. If it is the latter, then he has an excuse of sorts, but only for so long.
If we have to wait much longer for Verbruggen and his colleagues to get with the picture, then a Taiwanese boycott of the Beijing Games will be the only option.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS