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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath