Were it not for the need to maintain decorum and show Taiwan’s best face to the sporting world, the boycott by Chinese athletes of the World Games opening ceremony would warrant symbolic retaliation. No matter the reason for the boycott — refusing to recognize President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at the ceremony, or just boycotting for boycotting’s sake — and no matter how predictable such Chinese behavior may be, the snub directed at a democratically elected leader and the country he represents was deeply offensive and violated the goodwill that underlies international sporting competition.
The irony, of course, is that the Ma government is relying on Chinese goodwill to enhance electoral credibility and thus is averse to retaliation of any nature. Indeed, hardliners in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislative caucus rushed to hail the snub as a masterstroke of cross-strait detente. Were it not for Chinese goodwill, they bleat, the Chinese athletes would not be coming at all.
KMT Legislator Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇), one such hardliner, on Thursday praised negotiations between Taiwan’s Olympic authority, the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, and Chinese authorities that allegedly resulted in the boycott deal. The only sensible response to this self-destructive conduct is that the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee has, yet again, matched its incompetence in sports management with backroom mischief-making worthy of the International Olympic Committee itself.
None of this comes as any surprise. It is, however, becoming more and more interesting to reflect on what degree of insulting Chinese conduct Ma will tolerate personally given his typically pallid response to this snub — let alone behavior targeting the people he was elected to lead.
The World Games give China an opportunity to place itself in an attractive light in an international context, especially in light of the latest butchery in Xinjiang. These are, after all, world games, not an athletic exercise to exhort Chinese power and glory.
So, when the Taiwanese placard and flag carriers for the Chinese team walked out into the stadium with a large hole behind them where the Chinese delegation should have been, the insult was not just directed at Ma, or Taiwan, or the crowd that applauded politely and booed in roughly equal measure, but also at the other athletes.
For most, this incident will fade in the memory as the Games continue. For unificationists, it will probably lead to self-congratulation over the minimal backlash. For independence activists, however, the incident will add fuel to the theory that this nation’s president is prepared to subject himself to any act of symbolic denigration from the Chinese Communist Party in order to feed his obsession with Greater China and the economic and geopolitical confectionary it creates.
For credulous observers who would interpret Ma’s refusal, yet again, to take China’s bait as signs of statesmanship and strategic aplomb, the time will come when Ma’s effete and barren leadership will falter under direct acts of Chinese coercion, shattering their fantasies of regional stability and cooperation.
Ma’s presence at the World Games opening ceremony offered hope that he was becoming more willing to use his prestige as president in an international context. The Chinese boycott, however, reminds us that things have not changed very much.
As an instance of disposable cowardice, the reaction of the government and the KMT adds to a body of evidence that this president, this government and the party machine remain unwilling to rally around the flag at those symbolic moments that count.
On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly. We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right? It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how
China has apparently emerged as one of the clearest and most predictable beneficiaries of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” approach. Many countries are scrambling to defend their interests and reputation regarding an increasingly unpredictable and self-seeking US. There is a growing consensus among foreign policy pundits that the world has already entered the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the US-led international order. Consequently, a number of countries are reversing their foreign policy preferences. The result has been an accelerating turn toward China as an alternative economic partner, with Beijing hosting Western leaders, albeit
During the long Lunar New Year’s holiday, Taiwan has shown several positive developments in different aspects of society, hinting at a hopeful outlook for the Year of the Horse, but there are also significant challenges that the country must cautiously navigate with strength, wisdom and resilience. Before the holiday break, Taiwan’s stock market closed at a record 10,080.3 points and the TAIEX wrapped up at a record-high 33,605.71 points, while Taipei and Washington formally signed the Taiwan-US Agreement on Reciprocal Trade that caps US tariffs on Taiwanese goods at 15 percent and secures Taiwan preferential tariff treatment. President William Lai (賴清德) in
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Deputy Chairman Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑) earlier this month led a delegation to Beijing to attend a think tank forum between the KMT and Chinese Communist Party (CCP). After returning to Taiwan, Hsiao spoke at length about “accumulating mutual trust” and letting matters “fall into place,” portraying the forum as a series of discussions focused on cooperation in tourism, renewable energy, disaster prevention, emerging industries, health and medicine, and artificial intelligence (AI). However, when the entire dialogue presupposes the so-called “1992 consensus — the idea that there is only “one China,” with each side of the Taiwan
RSS