Last Wednesday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) finally found its voice and admonished China for violating the spirit of the Olympic Games. In response to comments by two top Chinese Communist Party officials in Tibet, the IOC issued a stern reminder to China that sports and politics don’t mix.
Beijing predictably defended statements that authorities should crush Tibetan dissidents to “bring more glory” to the Olympics. There’s nothing political about creating a “harmonious environment,” the Chinese foreign ministry replied.
While Beijing has repeatedly rebuked governments and organizations that mention human rights in the context of the Olympics, the reality is that no one has politicized the Games more profoundly than China.
China tied the Olympics to government reform when it promised the IOC in 2001 that the Games would make it loosen its reins on the press and freedom of speech. It has also used the Olympic torch relay as a symbol of its glory and rising prestige, sending the flame on the most ambitious tour in its history, escorted by paramilitary officers.
The route included Tibet and Xinjiang, where authorities did everything within their power to portray stability in these hot spots of discontent. Police reportedly launched a campaign of intimidation, detaining thousands of Uighurs deemed to be potential protesters ahead of the relay.
China has also politicized the Games by attempting to include Taiwan in its domestic torch route while preventing the nation’s medal-winning taekwondo team from training there ahead of competition.
Beijing would do better to take its cue from one government that — unlike China, Europe and the US — is manifestly unconcerned about political symbolism and press freedoms in China as the Olympics near: the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration.
Ma’s government has quickly established a policy of avoiding any topic that might upset Beijing.
This silence is only one of a number of ingratiating gestures that the government has made with the intention of positioning the nation to reap the economic benefits of Chinese tourists and investors.
The government is also trying to portray talks with Beijing as apolitical. This is about the economy, it argues — sovereignty can be dealt with later.
Yet the government’s negotiations are being depicted as a thawing of tensions. Much like the Games, the apolitical label is hard to sustain.
Detente is not possible between two governments through “apolitical” negotiations if one threatens the other with violence and does not recognize it as legitimate. Nor does it help if one side refers to the other’s head of state as “Mister.”
Taiwan’s government, anxious to fulfill its campaign promise to boost GDP, has politicized an ostensibly economic process by faithfully steering clear of Beijing’s soft spots.
Last week, China signaled that it would keep the upper hand at the negotiating table by setting a daily quota of 1,000 tourists traveling to Taiwan — a stark contrast to Ma’s promised figure of 3,000.
Again it can be seen that Beijing feels no obligation to match expressions of goodwill. The Chinese leadership must be feeling confident that Ma is in no position to bargain; Taiwan’s government thus would do better to demand respect from China in turn.
There is danger in the proposition that a series of concessions by one side alone can bring about mutual respect on the right to exist. The charade of politics-free conciliation will almost certainly undermine the nation’s bargaining power on something much more valuable than cross-strait charter flights: sovereignty.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS