Most people understand the phrase “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
Most, but not Chinese officials visiting Taiwan. How else how could one explain Straits Exchange Foundation Secretary-General Kao Koong-lian’s (高孔廉) announcement on Wednesday that a “special zone” would be set up for protesters during next month’s cross-strait talks in Taichung?
Mention of a special zone brings to mind Beijing during last year’s Olympic Games, when Chinese officials designated three parks around the city where their disgruntled citizens could gather — if approved — to let off steam. This, of course, turned out to be a sham as none of the protests received official approval.
Chinese officials, it seems, would much rather hire thugs to lock people up in “black jails” than let them vent grievances or opinions that vary from the party line or cause official embarrassment.
While plans for Taichung’s “protest zone” have yet to be revealed, it is safe to say that it would will be located far away from the Chinese delegation’s hotel or any of the locations it will visit.
Such an outcome will be unacceptable to protesters, who will be unlikely to stay in the zones if the Chinese delegation is nowhere near.
Officials charged with protecting the Chinese are probably worried there will be a repeat of the scenes in Taipei last year, when Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) was trapped in a hotel until the early hours of the morning by protesters and spent much of the rest of his time in the Grand Hotel.
One could argue, however, that the protests turned violent last year as a result of police provocation and their initial overreaction in confiscating Republic of China (ROC) flags and manhandling dozens of peaceful protesters.
Chinese officials may not be used to directly encountering protests in their own country, and they may not want to admit to the existence of the ROC, but it will certainly not harm them to see a flag they don’t recognize or hear a dissenting voice.
Taiwan, after all, is a democracy where demonstrations are the norm. It should not be turned into a replica of China every time an important Chinese official visits. Chen and his colleagues should understand this and so should President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government.
The government has already repeated the message from last year that “lawful protesters” will be protected. If by “lawful” this means protesting within a special zone kilometers away from Chen and his entourage, however, it should not be surprised if there is a repeat of last year’s disorder. Short of holding the meetings on Green Island, it will be impossible to shield the Chinese from protests.
Of course, Chen’s personal safety should be paramount, but many other countries deal with protesters without resorting to such draconian measures. If ensuring Chen’s safety is going to temporarily turn Taiwan into a de facto vassal state and result in the disenfranchising of decent people trying to make their opinions heard, then it would be better for everyone if Chen not did not come to Taiwan and the talks were held in a third country such as Singapore, where Chinese delegations have long felt more at home.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS