In the current run-up to next year's Summer Olympics in Beijing, the Communist Party media minders inside China have relaxed the rules a bit for foreign journalists, but many people remain skeptical about this new openness. Is it genuine, and more importantly, will it last longer than a year and a half?
From the New York Times to CNN, international reporters and their editors are wondering if China really means business, or if the apparent shift in policy is just a public relations charade for the sake of headlines.
For about 18 months, starting now, China's media minders say they will allow foreign journalists unprecedented freedom to work inside the country. But Agence France Presse, in a recent report from Beijing, wrote that while "foreign journalists in China began a new year of supposedly more open reporting, [there is] lingering skepticism over how faithfully local-level officials will implement relaxed media rules."
According to the new regulations, foreign reporters will be able to "travel freely and interview anyone with the interviewee's consent, dropping cumbersome official approvals which were often denied anyway by security-conscious authorities."
In theory, the changes should grant foreign reporters access to Chinese dissidents and other critics of the Chinese Communist Party -- and to those people inside China who recognize Taiwan as a separate country and who support Taiwan's nation-building process.
The Foreign Correspondents Club of China (which is composed of reporters from such publications as the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, the Guardian and from CNN) has encouraged its members to report any abuses of the new rules and plans to collect the data to show to Chinese officials later, said Melinda Liu, the club's president and the bureau chief for Newsweek magazine in Beijing.
One wonders if these new regulations will allow foreign reporters to call Taiwan a "country" when they send out their dispatches, especially during the Summer Olympics, when Taiwanese athletes participate in the Games in Beijing.
While AFP reported that a top Chinese official said that he hoped the new rules would be extended after the Olympics "if all goes well," such an outcome is highly unlikely.
Some international observers feel that the new rules for foreign journalists could have the same effect as China's entry into the WTO, which created greater openness in the country's economy. But others remain skeptical.
Liu told AFP that the new regulations were "a welcome development." But she added that "if grassroots officials are not well-briefed or actively drag their feet, there will still be problems."
And what if a reporter for the New York Times or Newsweek wants to interview Taiwanese athletes at the Summer Olympics about their feelings about Taiwan's sovereignty or the insulting "Chinese Taipei" moniker imposed on them by PRC pressure on the International Olympics Committee?
Will Beijing allow foreign journalists to report their real responses, in print and on air? While China is trying to show the world a new openness in the year-long run-up to the Summer Olympics, much of the world remains skeptical about how long this openness will last.
Expect some good official foot-dragging. And expect some significant problems when it comes to reporting the truth about Taiwan from inside China. If China still regards Taiwan as "a renegade province," as it loves to tell the world, how will it ever allow foreign media to report that Taiwan is not a renegade province, but a separate country, a free, independent, sovereign nation unto itself?
The answers will become apparent next year.
Dan Bloom is freelance writer in Taiwan.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS