There is something about art and symbols that really gets under the skin of Chinese Communist Party officials and makes them behave in ways that even they must know is against their self-interest.
This is exemplified by the deplorable decision made during the London Olympics this summer to take down the Republic of China flag from Regent Street after Chinese representatives in the UK pressured British officials to do so. Chinese officials apparently could not bear the idea that a symbol of Taiwanese nationhood, disagreeable though it may be to some Taiwanese, could flutter alongside the flags of other nations. However, rather than strengthen China’s interests, the move damaged its image while bringing into full contrast the reasons why Taiwan is not — and cannot be — part of China. The controversy received substantial coverage in the media, especially after hundreds of young people bearing flags gathered on Regent Street for various photo ops.
Over the years, Chinese officials, sports coaches and students have constantly lost their senses over art, images, films and other manifestations of freedom, ripping flags, boycotting festivals and sometimes resorting to physical violence. It is hard to tell whether this instinctive reaction to symbols stems from growing up in a society where propagandistic images played such a powerful role in cultivating nationalism, or from the realization that symbols can spark an emotional response in people.
The best example of this occurred earlier this month, when two officials from the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco attempted to intimidate David Lin (林銘新), a Taiwan-born American who erected a large mural depicting Chinese repression of Tibetans and Taiwanese, by writing letters to and then visiting the mayor of the town Lin lives in: Corvallis, Oregon.
Surely, as representatives to the US, Vice Consul Zhang Hao (張浩) and Deputy Consul-General Song Ruan (宋如安) should have known a thing or two about the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which among other provisions guarantees freedom of expression. Maybe poor training at China’s diplomacy school failed to inform them of this, though this would not explain why their political masters back in Beijing, whose permission they must have sought before launching their tirade, would agree to such a course of action.
Perhaps they thought they could get away with it, as governments sometimes do allow themselves to be bullied by China, and the Oregon town needs China more than China needs it. However, Corvallis Mayor Julie Manning defended the Constitution and appropriately lectured the two messengers on the virtues of the First Amendment, which enshrines rights and responsibilities.
Here again is a case of Chinese officials undermining their reputation and that of their country by attacking art and trying to impose the censorship regime that stifles freedom of expression in China (but does not censor jingoists like Sina Weibo microblogger @sunshineGaoyang, the purported editor-in-chief of the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Weekly and self-styled “Taiwan expert,” from rejoicing at the “wonderful” news of the assassination of the US ambassador to Libya, or the Beijing Evening News’ calls for Japan to be “nuked”).
Whatever the cause, this trait among Chinese officials is a weakness that Taiwan’s supporters should exploit. Taiwanese have an uncanny ability to translate ideas through visual art and proliferate them via the Internet. If artistic expression forces Beijing to reveal its true colors, then more art, murals, films, banners and flags should be put out there to tell not only Taiwan’s story, but by its reaction, that of China as well.
Starting today through Sept. 22, a series of activities — outreach events, photography shoots, a marathon, music concerts, roundtables and a rally — will be held in New York to support Taiwan’s bid to join the UN. Go check it out (www.un4tw.org), and keep an eye out for Chinese reactions.
“Testy,” “divisive,” “frigid,” “an exchange of insults” were some of the media descriptions of last month’s meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and their Chinese counterparts. Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass said that, rather than the “deft handling” needed in US-China relations, this encounter was “mishandled, a terrible start [with] way too much public signaling.” Yet, contrary to conventional wisdom, the acrimonious encounter with Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) was a great success for US diplomacy
A meeting between US and Chinese officials in Anchorage, Alaska, last month, showed that the US-China struggle will no doubt continue during the administration of US President Joe Biden. The struggle between democracies and authoritarian regimes is likely to last decades, because it stems from the fundamental difference in the two value systems — a difference that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees as an existential threat. The CCP fears that Chinese might someday demand the protection of individual liberties, and has therefore waged a years-long “total war” to undermine democracies, which eventually prompted the US to fight back. Within the
How could the Chinese delegation at the US-China summit in Anchorage, Alaska, last month possibly say that “the United States does not have the qualification to say that…”? As it turns out, one factor that accounts for this statement is overconfidence, and the other is an impression of the administration of US President Joe Biden as soft. However, there is yet another motivation, a subconscious one, for this statement: a criminal psyche. The Chinese delegates at the Alaska summit knew that at that very moment, there were more than 3 million Uighurs imprisoned in concentration camps and that hundreds of thousands