On Friday, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded this year’s Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波). For only the third time in the history of the award, its recipient is currently imprisoned by his own government. The first two were German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky in 1935 and Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991.
Reactions have been predictable. Chinese authorities are furious, partly because the history of the award places them in the company of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party and the ultra-repressive military junta that still keeps Aung San Suu Kyi under arrest, and partly because in awarding Liu the prize, the committee defied a Chinese warning that doing so would negatively affect relations between the two counties.
Elsewhere, praise has been loud and heartfelt — for Liu, whose own commitments represent a cadre of activists that has kept reform alive in China for decades under terrible conditions, but also for the prize committee itself, for its courage at a time when the first move in the Chinese foreign affairs playbook is increasing intimidation.
In Taipei the response has been more muted. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) congratulated Liu and repeated his remark on the recent anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, calling on China to address human rights issues with a more liberal attitude. The next day, to a crowd of Double Ten National Day visitors, he added that he hoped Liu would be released. Such reticence reflects Ma’s wish to avoid angering the Chinese while his administration is trying to improve cross-strait relations.
Before calling this response spineless, however, which no doubt many will, and while acknowledging that Liu deserves his prize every bit as much as China should be ashamed of it, it is worth reflecting on why discretion might be the best policy.
For one thing, while public criticism may have a place, it also comes with a cost. Experts warn that the award will probably make China more, rather than less, repressive, at least in the short-term, worsening conditions for people like Liu. Shaming may also set back what appears to be a growing belief among Chinese leaders that political reform is needed. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) has called for such reform on five different occasions since August.
Shaming also creates a false sense of righteousness in accusers. China is certainly not alone in its history of repression or resistance to change. While US President Barack Obama was among the first to call for Liu’s release, he is a living reminder of his county’s appalling racial history. And in Taiwan, on the very day the award was announced, legislators hastily approved Ma’s nominees to head the Judicial Yuan, neither of whom seems intent on reform, even as hundreds languish in legal limbo in jails and prisons and serious questions are asked about the competence and integrity of the judiciary.
The wholesale shaming of China over its human rights record erodes perspective on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, impeding engagement that is the most important force driving change. This perspective cannot be lost. Even the committee that awarded Liu’s prize tempered criticism by acknowledging the remarkable progress China has achieved in recent decades, political and economic.
For obvious reasons, we focus on the threat posed by China, a threat made all too real by its missiles and stories like Liu’s. Yet whatever fear they bear, such stories cannot be allowed to corrupt the many forms of exchange that have developed, as every tourist, businessperson and student who crosses the Taiwan Strait advances the future of which Liu dreams.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS