Only the most miserly of people would disparage the custom of exchanging gifts. The best childhood memories often include unexpectedly receiving a coveted item on holidays or birthdays.
There is a great joy in giving gifts. Beyond strengthening personal relationships, charity brings people a healthy sense of righteousness. Billionaires that once seemed the epitome of capitalist greed almost instantly transform into paragons of virtue when they share their wealth.
But the custom isn’t always as selfless at it appears. Implied obligations often lead one to question the motives of both the giver and the receiver.
The apparent zeal with which the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is prepared to accept Beijing’s offer of two giant pandas is one such instance. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) isn’t known for its charity, or subtlety: The animals are named Tuantuan (團團) and Yuanyuan (圓圓) — together forming the word tuanyuan (團圓), or “reunion.”
The former Democratic Progressive Party government refused the pandas with the polite but transparent excuse that Taiwan’s zoo facilities and climate were unsuitable for the animals. Under the new government, the Taipei Zoo is eagerly preparing for their arrival.
For people who enjoy seeing animals in captivity, the excitement is understandable. While the inert lumps of dirty fur pressed against a display window at China’s Dalian Forest Zoo often disappoint visitors more accustomed to seeing wild pandas on TV documentaries, Taiwan can — if the animals arrive — hopefully do better.
But if Taiwan is to accept such a gift, it should reciprocate. Not to do so would be impolite, impolitic and could imply the country was indebted to China. Orangutans, white-handed gibbons and sun bears have been proposed for the exchange. The three are either not native to Taiwan or also found in China — hardly an even transaction.
Rather than merely a gesture, Taiwan’s gift should be something Beijing really wants, something the Chinese will travel to see and marvel at.
Sixty years ago the KMT did Sinologists, historians and lovers of ancient art a great service by removing the bulk of Beijing’s Palace Museum and preserving it in Taiwan during the tumultuous years of China’s communist revolution. The National Palace Museum holds more than 650,000 artifacts shipped down from Beijing, a majority of which predates major Han Chinese immigration to Taiwan. Now that Beijing is relatively stable, it’s time to give the collection back.
The KMT’s effort to protect one of the world’s greatest treasures deserves more praise than it usually receives. What Chinese have called “looting” is retroactively defendable as having been necessary to keep the collection out of harm’s way.
Times have changed. With reports that more than 1,400 Chinese missiles are aimed at Taiwan, keeping the relics here is tantamount to storing munitions in the Parthenon. Ironically, Beijing is safer.
When socially required to accept a lavish gift, fast and equivalent reciprocation is often the best way to avoid ambiguity.
As the CCP offers its “reunion” gift, nothing could be more appropriate than allowing China a reunion with the symbols of its history held by the museum. The collection covers the “5,000 years of history” Chinese are fond of recounting when defining their country. Like the bulk of that history, the works in the museum have little to do with Taiwan, and the overtones of such a gift would be similar to China’s efforts to politicize two irresistible animals.
China wants to give Taiwan a “reunion.” Taipei should answer by giving Beijing a lesson in history.
Blake Carter is a writer based in Taipei.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing