Coverage of the announcement that eight Republican members of the US Congress and four of their Democratic colleagues on Wednesday nominated three of the leaders of Hong Kong’s Umbrella movement, and the movement as a whole, for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has been both illuminating and disappointing.
It was no surprise that many newspapers and wire agencies chose to focus on China’s reaction to the announcement or to imply that there was some kind of implicit bias on the part of the nominators.
Reuters, for example, went with “US Congress members irk China by nominating Hong Kong activists for Nobel Peace Prize,” when the reality is that China not being irked by something would actually be news.
The South China Morning Post started by saying that “a US congressional group known for its criticism of China” made the nomination, although the letter was signed by US Senator Marco Rubio and US Representative Christopher Smith, chairman and co-chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China respectively, four other members of the commission, and six who are not members of that body.
The 18-year-old commission, made up of nine senators, nine representatives and five members of the US president’s administration — although the administration has yet to fill those seats — does not itself qualify under the Nobel Foundation’s rules to be a nominator. Nominators have to be members of national assemblies, national governments or international courts of law. They can also be university professors or rectors, or former peace prize winners.
The coverage also painted the commission simply as a critic of China, ignoring the fact that its mandate is to monitor human rights and the development of the rule of law in China, including documenting cases of political prisoners.
Wednesday’s letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee was also just a formality: Nominations for this year’s prize had to be submitted by Thursday, and Rubio and Smith, when they released the commission’s latest report on Oct. 5 last year, said that they intended to nominate Joshua Wong (黃之鋒), Nathan Law (羅冠聰), Alex Chow (周永康) and the entire Umbrella movement for this year’s prize.
The reaction to the nomination from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been depicted as “strongly worded,” but it sounded like almost every other statement the ministry has made in response to any criticism of Beijing, its leaders or its policy over the past several decades.
The ministry said the US lawmakers should “stop meddling with” the country’s internal affairs and reiterated that the 2014 Occupy protests that defined the Umbrella movement were illegal.
Taiwanese should applaud the nomination of Wong et al both because they are an inspiration to all those who seek greater democracy for themselves and others, and because this nation, perhaps more than many others, can appreciate their efforts and sacrifices.
Taiwanese should also support the nomination to counter those who try to marginalize their legitimate aspirations as citizens of this nation.
For far too long, international news agencies and journalists have insisted on framing reports about political, economic or social developments in this nation on the basis of what they think the reaction will be in Beijing. Inevitably the phrase “amid rising tensions” is added, with the occasional “escalating tensions” thrown in for variety. However, a quick Internet search would show that cross-strait or Taipei-Beijing tensions have been rising, escalating, mounting for more than two decades, and not, as so many reports have it, “since Taiwan’s pro-independence president was elected.”
Who knows if Wong and his colleagues will be awarded the peace prize in nine months? One thing is certain, however: Coverage will be painted in terms of a win or loss for Beijing’s prestige.
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
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
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
RSS