For the many millions around the world who love basketball, LeBron James of the Los Angeles Lakers is a legend, who has done an excellent job promoting the game, and at the same time focusing attention on social issues in the US.
That is why it is so amazing that James made such an incredibly insensitive mistake last week by criticizing Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey for tweeting on Oct. 4 to “Fight for Freedom, Stand for Hong Kong.”
Morey was, of course, right in his support for freedom and democracy in Hong Kong, but soon after his tweet, things started to go wrong: Chinese Central Television immediately canceled a number of planned NBA pre-season games in China — threatening the NBA’s lucrative broadcasting income from those games — while Chinese companies such as smartphone brand Vivo and Anta Sports Shoes withdrew their sponsorship.
BACKTRACKING
The NBA, through its commissioner Adam Silver, attempted damage control: In an initial statement, he defended Morey’s right to free speech, while at the same time, he tried to pacify the Chinese side by apologizing.
It did not help: The Chinese side continued to threaten to cancel broadcasts of all NBA games.
That is where LeBron James came in. After returning from playing some exhibition games in China, James seemingly sided with the repressive Communist regime by attacking Daryl Morey’s tweet as “misinformed” and “not educated” on the Hong Kong situation. He added, for good form, that this was a “very delicate, a very sensitive situation.”
Yes, Mr James, situations where people are deprived of their freedom and their rights are indeed “delicate and sensitive” — particularly for those who are being repressed. That is why it is essential that those who still enjoy freedom and democracy stand up for those universal rights, and do not let themselves be bamboozled into siding with the repressors.
PROFITS OR PRINCIPLES?
The problem is, of course, not just James himself: It is the whole of the NBA, and so many other businesses and corporations that have gotten themselves dependent on a repressive regime in Beijing that does not allow freedom of expression.
The NBA episode is a stark reminder to Western companies that they have to stand up for universal principles and values. If they succumb to the orchestrated pressure emanating from Beijing, whether it is on Hong Kong, Tibet, East Turkestan or Taiwan, then they undermine precious freedom and democracy around the world, and present an invitation on a platter to the repressive rulers in Beijing to do this time and again.
FREEDOM COSTS
The best thing that came out of this whole affair is the response to James by Boston Celtics center Enes Kanter — himself a Turkish dissident who has been exiled by his country’s authoritarian government, led by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — who tweeted on Oct. 14: “Haven’t seen or talked to my family 5 years, Jailed my dad, My siblings can’t find jobs, Revoked my passport, International arrest warrant, My family can’t leave the country, Got Death Threats every day, Got attacked, harassed, Tried to kidnap me in Indonesia, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.”
Go Houston Rockets, go Boston Celtics!
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat and teaches the history of Taiwan at George Mason University in Virginia. From 1980 through 2016 he served as editor of the Taiwan Communique.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS