China has threatened to retaliate if The 10 Conditions of Love, a documentary about World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer, is screened as part of the Kaohsiung Film Festival. Beijing has also banned a new book by Taiwanese writer Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) about the tumult of 1949, when Communist rebels defeated the Nationalist government and forced the latter to retreat to Taiwan. China may be shaping as a great power, but such behavior betrays its inability to rise above autocratic impulses.
The content of films and books and how it is transmitted are matters of freedom of expression. If China insists on putting economic pressure on Taiwan over legitimate subjects of debate, its efforts will backfire by widening the political gap between the two sides.
In Taiwan, four ways have emerged in dealing with such meddling.
The first is resistance. The book should be published and the film should be screened without interference, supporters say, and China’s opinions on the matter can be safely ignored.
The second way changes the approach to reduce the fallout. Threatened with a Chinese tourist boycott of Kaohsiung, the city government decided to proceed with four screenings of the documentary at the Kaohsiung Film Archive ahead of the festival proper. This concession claims to protect artistic freedom and the public’s right to watch films at the same time as meeting the concerns of the tourism industry. It is unlikely, however, that this will satisfy China.
The third way is taking a gradual approach and waiting for protests to subside and tempers to cool before acting. By banning Lung’s book before it went on sale, China took the opposite approach and helped make it a top seller in Taiwan and elsewhere.
Commenting on the matter, Lung said: “I think whoever made the decision to ban my book definitely hasn’t read it. But never mind. First let them get on with preparations for National Day on Oct. 1. I think once National Day is over there should be no problem.”
Lung says the fuss only highlights the lack of understanding between Taiwan and China, and that she would quietly wait for the Chinese authorities to change their attitude. There is no guarantee, however, that they will do so.
The fourth way is to bow in the face of adversity. Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said the decision to bring forward screenings of the Kadeer film is a matter for the Kaohsiung City Government and not one in which the central government would intervene.
When answering questions in the Legislative Yuan, however, he said: “If we’re doing business together, and you would like me to go to your place and buy things more often, but you do something to upset me, then I’m not going to go and buy from you.”
The comment suggests that the central government would rather cater to China’s whims and political agenda than defend the stuff of a pluralistic society.
Which is the best way to deal with a neighbor as obnoxious and powerful as China? In strategic terms, the answer might differ according to the circumstances. Consideration would be given to dignity, time and expense in dealing with a problem, room for negotiation, balancing various interests and so on.
Sometimes a head-on collision is not the best option, but it is never acceptable to give way completely. It is therefore regrettable that the premier should attempt to please Beijing by suggesting that the Kaohsiung City Government back down entirely. Aside from reinforcing the impression that the new premier will end up an ineffectual toady, Wu’s comment were an affront to the dignity of this country and the values that give it strength.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS