Beijing barred reporters from three Taiwanese media organizations — the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times), Up Media and Mirror Media, a newly launched Taiwanese weekly — from covering Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in China due to “technical difficulties.”
Authorities said that since space in the meeting room was limited, even reporters from some Chinese media outlets had to be barred from entering the room.
Judging from China’s experience hosting many summits, Beijing’s claim that it was unable to find a room big enough for the three Taiwanese media outlets does not make much sense.
The only reasonable explanation is that the host selected these outlets for special treatment.
The freedoms of expression and the media are basic rights that are regarded in democratic nations as fundamental. It is the responsibility of media outlets to monitor authorities and hold them up to public scrutiny.
By banning these three outlets from covering the meeting due to so-called “technical difficulties,” Beijing deprived the reporters of their right to gather news. Not only did it fail to live up to its duties as a host, it also limited freedom of the press.
Since China claims to be a major power, its acts beg the question of why it would act in such a narrow-minded manner.
The Hung-Xi meeting differed from former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) meeting with Xi last year. Hung’s meeting with Xi represented a new model for cross-strait interactions in that it was a meeting between Chinese government officials and a Taiwanese opposition party, which the KMT has again become.
It was an important milestone for the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party as it was an expression of their concern for the development of ties between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and there was no reason to ban either local or foreign journalists from gaining an understanding of this situation and reporting on it.
China’s barring of Taiwanese media outlets raises suspicions that it is pointedly excluding those who are thought to have ties to President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration.
At this turning point, where the two sides should seek communication, cooperation and mutual respect, barring these outlets could trigger criticism and thus set up more unnecessary obstacles between the two sides.
Would it not be a pity if such obstacles were to hurt the good intentions behind the meeting?
As for the topics discussed at the meeting, Xi inevitably unveiled his expectations and vision about the future of cross-strait development. Journalists went to Beijing to report firsthand on the atmosphere of the meeting.
However, other media outlets covering the event would certainly report on China’s exclusion of Taiwanese reporters, which would divert the focus on the key points of Xi’s statement. This implies that Beijing missed the main point by focusing on smaller issues.
Finally, the media environment in Taiwan is very competitive and probably quite different from the situation in China, but basic newsgathering rights and press freedom are not negotiable.
If China had avoided its inappropriate exclusion of these media outlets and instead allowed them to cover it, Beijing would surely have received much more praise than criticism.
Kung Ling-shin is chair of the Department of Journalism at Ming Chuan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations