The People’s Republic of China (PRC) likes to promote that its constitution enshrines freedom of religion, as well as the freedom not to believe in a religion, and bans discrimination on the grounds of religion or lack thereof. The important — but unstated — caveat is that religion must be state-sanctioned.
The PRC also likes to send delegations to international events, including religious gatherings. However, it is often reluctant to play by the rules of such gatherings (as Taiwanese know all too well), a tendency it demonstrated once again this week when 17 Chinese delegates left the South Korean city of Yeosu in a huff because they had not been able to get the World Fellowship of Buddhists (WFB) to toss out a delegation of Tibetan Buddhists from a biannual gathering.
The WFB was founded in May 1950 to bring together representatives of different Buddhists sects, be they of the Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana traditions, and, quoting from the fellowship’s Web site: “To secure unity, solidarity and brotherhood amongst Buddhists.”
Chinese delegations have attended other WFB gatherings where Tibetan delegations were present, such as the previous one, held in Sri Lanka. The problem this time, apparently, was the make-up of the Tibetan delegation, which included Samdhong Rinpoche, a monk and former prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile, and Peme Chhinjor, minister of religion and culture in the government and the most senior member of the Cabinet.
On Tuesday, three Tibetan delegates were forced to leave a delegates’ assembly meeting after the Chinese threatened to boycott it and the WFB secretary-general conceded China’s demand, but on Tuesday night it was the Chinese who walked out of the opening ceremony because the Tibetans refused to leave. The Chinese said they did not want to share the same venue as people they said represented the Tibetan government-in-exile.
Chhinjor told the Korea Herald that organizers had asked him to go outside because of the Chinese complaints, but he refused because he had been invited by the conference organizers, he is a member of the WFB and “this is [South] Korea, not Beijing.” He also downplayed the incident, saying it was “Nothing so special, Chinese are always like that.”
What was special was the reaction of the event’s organizers, the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism, who accused the Chinese delegation of “lacking the least respect and consideration” for a religious event. While saying the departure of the Chinese was regrettable, the order said in a statement that: “The Chinese delegates only prioritized their own political agenda by refusing to accept the presence of a Tibetan delegation officially registered as a member of the WFB.”
The statement went on to demand a sincere apology from the Chinese delegation and a promise that such an incident would never happen again. The Jogye Order also said it sympathized with the religious activities of Tibetan Buddhists and would “seriously reconsider” ties with Chinese Buddhists.
The Chinese delegates may not have had much of a say in the matter, given that media reports of their departure noted that they left in a vehicle provided by the Chinese embassy in South Korea. It is highly likely that Chinese embassy officials demanded they toe the party line and leave once it became clear that they would not be able to bully the conference organizers into ousting the Tibetans. Nevertheless, their show of pique does no credit to the Chinese claims of freedom of religion.
So three cheers to the Jogye Order for living up to the WFB’s goals of showing solidarity and brotherhood among Buddhists by defending the right of members of the WFB to participate in the organization’s activities regardless of their political affiliation. Three jeers to the Chinese delegation — made up of monks and “Buddhist officials” — for not being willing to acknowledge the brotherhood of their coreligionists. They obviously have yet to learn what freedom of religion truly means.
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS