Culture, violence don’t mix
In your page one story you say that Chinese Minister of Culture Cai Wu (蔡武) and Council for Cultural Affairs Minister Emile Sheng (盛治仁) sort of agreed that cultural relations promote peace and that they are good and well (“Officials propose Taiwan, China cultural exchanges,” Sept. 7, page 1).
My big problem with this is that Sheng didn’t have the courage to stand up to this Chinese official and say that when someone is cultured, they don’t promote violence.
China has more than 1,500 missiles aimed at Taiwan. How can Cai say China wants to enhance cultural exchanges while holding a gun to Taiwan’s head?
Second, China has not budged on its “Anti-Secession” Law. How is that cultured? Where I come from, you get respect when you show some.
Taiwan greets and hosts all these officials from China who openly tell the Taiwanese things can work out, as long as the “one China” principle is adhered to. I say “Expletive” NO!
Moreover, in other articles in this week’s paper, Cai seems to sidestep particular questions. It almost felt like he didn’t want to rock the boat.
Taiwan and China can be friends, but only if and when China comes to terms with reality. A cultured person is by definition: “civilized: marked by refinement in taste and manners.”
If you threaten a country with war, please don’t ask for improvements in cultural ties. Unless China changes its approach toward Taiwan I see no reason to go beyond economic talks, let alone engage in political ones.
Harry Adamopoulos
Taipei
It was — for me at least — extremely distressing to read your article about Cai and cultural exchanges. There is a line in Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Prometheus Unbound, where the First Fury proclaims — “Ha! I scent life!” After reading the article, all that I can say is — “Ha! I scent a trap!”
Taiwan had better beware lest it see its precious culture co-opted by the Chinese, trampled on and warped beyond all recognition.
Cai on Monday proposed “institutionalizing cultural exchanges between Taiwan and China.” Cai suggested “that both sides hold visits by high-level cultural officials and sign an agreement on the matter.”
Hmm ... we can only wonder what this future “agreement” will be called.
Cai told a cross-strait forum in Taipei that “it took more than the economy to sustain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”
“The economy is no doubt important, but it is no substitute for cultural exchanges and the sharing of ideas. Now that the two sides have signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement [ECFA], it is time to begin talks on cultural exchanges to create a situation that is mutually beneficial and will make both sides understand each other better,” he told the forum.
Bullshit. Cai is a viper hiding in the grass, its jaws agape and its fangs at the ready for an unsuspecting victim to expose the heel.
With the “cultural exchanges” that Cai — and others within both the Chinese Nationalist (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — are planning, there can be only unilaterally beneficial results, to China’s great advantage.
Cai said that “he hoped China would push for cultural change, meet the needs of the market, help upgrade his country’s tastes and resist culture that was mediocre, hollow and vulgar.”
We all know what Cai means by this last phrase. Resisting culture that is “mediocre,” “hollow” and “vulgar” means squelching the voices of political dissidents — be they Han Chinese, Uighur or Tibetan.
Cai himself is nothing but a third-rater; a mediocre, hollow, vulgar bureaucrat who knows naught about culture, and who “achieved” his post through bootlicking and toadyism.
However, Sheng was spot on when he said that “culture was an exchange of values and ideas.”
He urged mutual tolerance and respect, “adding that the biggest obstacle to cultural exchanges was forcing individual values on other people.”
Once again, Sheng is 100 percent correct in his assessment.
Paradoxically, this paramount notion is precisely what the Chinese are utterly oblivious to.
For an example I would ask everyone interested to consult the New York Times archives for Oct. 18 last year, in the “Asia/Pacific” section. The article bears the title “Uneasy Engagement,” and it details China’s dealings with officials at the Frankfurt Book Fair.
The article begins by stating the truism that China has increased efforts to promote its culture to “counter Western influence and improve its image in the wider world.”
But things did not end up exactly as had been hoped for. When the fair’s German organizers and diplomats urged the Chinese to allow a prominent storyteller and musician, Liao Yiwu (廖亦武), to come to Frankfurt, the Chinese authorities refused to lift Liao’s overseas travel ban, and ordered him to stop talking about it.
Fair organizers withdrew invitations to two dissident writers — Dai Qing (戴晴) and Bei Ling (貝嶺) — whom the Chinese organizers had wanted to exclude, but ultimately caved in to pressure by journalists and politicians and invited the pair at the last moment. When the pair made statements, the Chinese delegation walked out.
The delegation returned, but only after an abject apology — no doubt accompanied by the requisite kowtow — by fair director Jurgen Boos.
Michael Scanlon
East Hartford, Connecticut
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US