China rolled out a fine example of its command of Orwellian language and logic on Wednesday, with the State Council Information Office’s release of a nearly 18,000-word white paper on the Dalai Lama and Tibet. Taiwan, and the rest of the world, should take note.
In the paper, Beijing declared that the exiled Tibetan leader must focus on seeking China’s forgiveness for his separatist activities. It also claimed that the Buddhist monk supports and incites the waves of self-immolations by Tibetans, and his calls for Beijing to stop its drive for more Han Chinese migration into Tibet are “tantamount to an ethnic cleansing of the [Tibetan] plateau,” adding: “The Dalai group’s logic is absurd and chilling, proposing to force tens of millions of people of other ethnic groups out of this region, where they have lived for generations.”
Such delusions and gross distortions of the facts are nothing new for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but they should not go unchallenged.
However, the Dalai Lama might be suffering a delusion or two himself with his comments over the past year that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) might be open to starting dialogue on Tibet and describing Xi as a “realist” who is being held back by elements within the CCP. Any such hopes will surely have been quashed by the comments out of the Chinese capital in recent months, especially during the latest session of the Chinese National People’s Congress.
Yet the Dalai Lama is not alone in having such delusions. In the months leading up to Xi’s enthronement as head of the CCP and the Chinese presidency — and since then — many academics, think tank pundits and politicians have painted Xi as a liberal political reformer. Xi’s tenure so far has proven these people to be wishful dreamers and there are no indications that he will deviate from his path.
While Xi has made some changes designed to win over China’s growing middle class and hordes of migrant workers — such as easing the one-child policy and household registration system restrictions, abolishing the re-education camps and a far-reaching crackdown on high-level corruption within the party and state-run enterprises — he has also presided over a renewed assault on human rights and political freedoms.
He has also made it clear that he does not support either constitutional reform or judicial independence, which are crucial to loosening the CCP’s dictatorial rule. Then there is the cult of personality that is developing around Xi, which is never a good sign in a reformer.
In addition, the ramping up of Chinese claims to islands and land reclamation efforts in the South China Sea ensures tensions in the region will only increase.
Beijing’s attitude toward the Dalai Lama, Tibetans’ aspirations and those seeking a greater voice in public affairs in China — such as the five members of the Women’s Rights Action Group held for more than a month because they wanted to protest sexual harassment on public transportation — does not bode well for Taiwan.
All the kowtowing to Beijing over the past decade by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), talk of “descendants of the yellow emperor,” “family” and the economic agreements sought by the current administration might have brought limited economic benefits to Taiwan, but they have done nothing to ease the CCP’s antagonistic stance toward Taiwan as a nation or the fundamental freedoms and rights that Taiwanese have fought so hard to enjoy.
Taiwan still needs to engage with China, but it should not pretend that Xi and his cohorts would ever be willing to treat Taipei as an equal, or want what is best for Taiwanese. Like the Dalai Lama, Taiwanese have no need to apologize to Beijing for anything.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength