Chinese interference
Referring to the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, the mayor of Corvallis, Oregon, Julie Manning, recently defended constituent David Lin’s (林銘新) rights against the Chinese Consulate General’s demand that Lin’s mural depicting Tibet’s and Taiwan’s struggle against tyranny be removed.
By contrast, when Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) came to Taiwan, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), against his citizens’ wishes, removed all Republic of China flags along the route that Chen would be passing through, surrendering to China’s wishes.
Ma gets paid a president’s wages, while a small-town mayor in Oregon is paid a US$100 monthly stipend. Who is the better leader? Who defends their citizens’ rights?
The mural incident was not the first time that China has tried to interfere with local US civic affairs. In 2006, Xuhui District in Shanghai, China, lobbied heavily to become a sister city of Irvine, California, but stipulated one condition: That Irvine not honor its five-year sister city bond with Taoyuan, Taiwan. After the condition was rejected, Xuhui decided not to pursue a sister city relationship with Irvine.
The Irvine incident drove a wedge between the city’s Democrat-controlled council and the Republican minority who uncovered the Chinese plot. Then-Irvine mayor Beth Krom and the city council were in a difficult position, having to choose between a powerful Chinese city district with large lobbying resources and a long-term sister city in democratic Taiwan. After hours of demonstration by Taiwanese-Americans and four hours of public debate lasting until midnight, the city council voted to maintain and honor the sister city relationship with Taoyuan. Xuhui chose not to sign on as a sister city. A few years later, the Irvine Sister City Foundation was dissolved, effectively abolishing Irvine’s sister city activities.
It is impossible to learn all the details of the Chinese plot, but this much was revealed: When Krom and her staff went to Shanghai to sign the sister city agreement, Krom’s assistant was called to another room, without the mayor’s knowledge, to sign a separate memorandum renouncing Taoyuan’s sister cityhood. When the delegates returned to Irvine, it was too late for the mayor to change course. Although the city council correctly voted to honor Taoyuan’s sister city relationship, the fact that the subsequent mayor of Irvine ended the city’s support of the Sister City Foundation indicates that China, through its local agents, continued to pressure city leaders after the event.
China’s attempts to take over Taiwan are very extensive. Its slogan “There is only one China in the world, and both Tibet and Taiwan belong to China” means: “There is only one tyranny in the world that claims it owns both Tibet and Taiwan.” Given such adversity, can Ma defend the rights of Taiwanese?
Stan Yang
Orange County, California
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
“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
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