The White House on May 5 hit back at Beijing’s demand that US airlines comply with Chinese standards on how they refer to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, dismissing the demands as “Orwellian nonsense.”
Beijing’s Orwellian bent continues to be on display.
The state-owned Global Times reported that online commentators have been complaining about a T-shirt sold by US clothing retailer Gap, showing a map of China. The map omitted Taiwan, Tibet, part of the South China Sea and Aksai Chin, a large disputed border area between India and China.
Gap on Monday apologized and withdrew the T-shirts. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lu Kang (陸慷) noted the apology and said the ministry would be following the company’s actions.
Da Ai TV has withdrawn a historical drama, Jiachang’s Heart (智子之心), after airing only two episodes. The drama was inspired by the story of a Taiwanese nurse who served with the Japanese imperial army in China during World War II, when Taiwan was a Japanese colony.
Despite denials by Da Ai media development manager Ou Hung-yu (歐宏瑜), the decision to cancel the show reportedly followed pressure from China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, which was unhappy about the show’s favorable depiction of the Japanese army.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains its political power through censorship and control of media through official outlets such as the Global Times. It is no surprise that the “omissions” in the map on Gap’s T-shirts were noted by Chinese online commentators. They are relentlessly fed the CCP’s propaganda about Taiwan belonging to China, as well as the rejection of dissenting voices. Neither is it surprising that official media outlets or China’s foreign ministry picked up on it.
In George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, people’s minds are controlled by constant state surveillance, state-controlled historical revisionism and the pared-down, concept-poor language of “newspeak.”
The CCP subscribes to constant surveillance and historical revisionism. Its version of newspeak is the persistent repetition of a simple message. Pertinent to Taiwan, the messsage is: “Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan is part of China.”
However, historically and in terms of international law, there is little to commend that claim. It is certainly one that the majority of Taiwanese reject.
In Animal Farm, Orwell explored the power of messages and how its gradual and subtle modification can lead to the creeping extension of power. In the story, the rule “All animals are equal” becomes “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” overnight, giving more power to the pigs.
The CCP’s model of governance is its own business. It cannot expect organizations, broadcasters or retailers from other nations to comply with its dictates.
In November last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) told a forum for foreign political groups in Beijing that China “will not import other countries’ models, and will not export the China model.” Since then, it seems the message has become “China will not import other countries’ models, and will not export the China model, unless deemed necessary.”
In other words, Beijing wants to have its cake and eat it.
Foreign companies bow to Beijing’s bullying because of corporate interests, while the governments of other nations concede to Beijing’s unilateral historical revisionism due to political and economic expediency.
Calling China’s tactics Orwellian is accurate. Being Orwellian, the normalization of the message and the gradual, almost imperceptible alterations to the narrative are pernicious. Not calling these out for what they are is the mistake.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers