China has threatened to retaliate if The 10 Conditions of Love, a documentary about World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer, is screened as part of the Kaohsiung Film Festival. Beijing has also banned a new book by Taiwanese writer Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) about the tumult of 1949, when Communist rebels defeated the Nationalist government and forced the latter to retreat to Taiwan. China may be shaping as a great power, but such behavior betrays its inability to rise above autocratic impulses.
The content of films and books and how it is transmitted are matters of freedom of expression. If China insists on putting economic pressure on Taiwan over legitimate subjects of debate, its efforts will backfire by widening the political gap between the two sides.
In Taiwan, four ways have emerged in dealing with such meddling.
The first is resistance. The book should be published and the film should be screened without interference, supporters say, and China’s opinions on the matter can be safely ignored.
The second way changes the approach to reduce the fallout. Threatened with a Chinese tourist boycott of Kaohsiung, the city government decided to proceed with four screenings of the documentary at the Kaohsiung Film Archive ahead of the festival proper. This concession claims to protect artistic freedom and the public’s right to watch films at the same time as meeting the concerns of the tourism industry. It is unlikely, however, that this will satisfy China.
The third way is taking a gradual approach and waiting for protests to subside and tempers to cool before acting. By banning Lung’s book before it went on sale, China took the opposite approach and helped make it a top seller in Taiwan and elsewhere.
Commenting on the matter, Lung said: “I think whoever made the decision to ban my book definitely hasn’t read it. But never mind. First let them get on with preparations for National Day on Oct. 1. I think once National Day is over there should be no problem.”
Lung says the fuss only highlights the lack of understanding between Taiwan and China, and that she would quietly wait for the Chinese authorities to change their attitude. There is no guarantee, however, that they will do so.
The fourth way is to bow in the face of adversity. Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said the decision to bring forward screenings of the Kadeer film is a matter for the Kaohsiung City Government and not one in which the central government would intervene.
When answering questions in the Legislative Yuan, however, he said: “If we’re doing business together, and you would like me to go to your place and buy things more often, but you do something to upset me, then I’m not going to go and buy from you.”
The comment suggests that the central government would rather cater to China’s whims and political agenda than defend the stuff of a pluralistic society.
Which is the best way to deal with a neighbor as obnoxious and powerful as China? In strategic terms, the answer might differ according to the circumstances. Consideration would be given to dignity, time and expense in dealing with a problem, room for negotiation, balancing various interests and so on.
Sometimes a head-on collision is not the best option, but it is never acceptable to give way completely. It is therefore regrettable that the premier should attempt to please Beijing by suggesting that the Kaohsiung City Government back down entirely. Aside from reinforcing the impression that the new premier will end up an ineffectual toady, Wu’s comment were an affront to the dignity of this country and the values that give it strength.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS