The first time the Dalai Lama wanted to visit after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, the Tibetan spiritual leader was turned down because it was not an “appropriate time for him to visit.” When World Uyghur Congress president and former political prisoner Rebiya Kadeer was invited to visit, the government said she was “linked to terrorists.”
Then there were the beat-ups. World Uyghur Congress secretary-general Dolkun Isa had not even planned to visit when the National Immigration Agency barred him based on intelligence from a “friendly country” indicating that he had links to terrorist groups. Isa, who has visited Taiwan before, was surprised and disappointed.
Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi (李洪志) might be equally surprised to hear that he, too, is not welcome in Taiwan — even though he has not made public any plans to come.
Last week, the Chinese-language China Times reported that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) intended to invite Li to visit. This could only be interpreted as a “provocation” designed to push the government into another awkward refusal of a Beijing foe who poses no risk to public order or national security.
Each refusal is an embarrassment that highlights the government’s willingness to stifle free speech to appease its authoritarian neighbor. Its rejection of Kadeer was perhaps even more cringeworthy than that of the Dalai Lama, because Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) gratuitously linked a peaceful democracy activist to violent elements. That is rhetoric often heard from Beijing on both the Dalai Lama and Kadeer, but this was the first time the Taiwanese government has chimed in.
On Li’s case, National Security Bureau Director Tsai Der-sheng’s (蔡得勝) response was as telling as Jiang’s. In a legislative question-and-answer session, Tsai said a visit by Li would “damage cross-strait ties.”
This is precisely the government’s reason for shunning Kadeer and the Dalai Lama, who was later allowed to visit in the aftermath of Typhoon Morakot, but snubbed by Ma.
Tsai’s bluntness is noteworthy. It may indicate that the government is smarting after its claims about Kadeer backfired, drawing much negative publicity. Yet it is surprising that Tsai felt obliged to offer information on Li at all. No one — the newspaper that first published the report about Li, the DPP legislator who asked Tsai about him or Tsai himself — seems concerned with just how implausible a visit by Li at the invitation of the DPP is.
Li is described by people who know him as intensely private. He has long avoided the limelight, although there is no shortage of news outlets and other audiences who would be interested in hearing his opinions on the persecution of Falun Gong, the stability of Chinese Communist Party rule and other matters in his home country.
Tsai, like Jiang, offered more information than was called for, raising the question of whether he was pandering to Beijing.
His comments may have pleased China, even if Zhongnanhai is probably not concerned about Li visiting Taiwan.
After the security bureau’s frankness, it would be interesting to hear the government’s response if another of China’s star dissidents were invited. The DPP may never have planned to invite Li, but perhaps it should draw up a list of other thorns in China’s side. There is good reason to be intentionally provocative: Barring peaceful dissidents to avoid upsetting Beijing is deplorable and must be confronted.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS