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.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS