The news from Beijing that so many were anxiously awaiting finally came earlier this week — the nominees for this year’s Confucius Peace Prize. However, even for an award that is just three years old and of such prominence that none of the previous winners has bothered to collect it, there was a dispiriting sameness to the list of nominees.
In no particular order, the nominees are: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; his predecessor Kofi Annan; Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra; Microsoft founder Bill Gates; Wang Dingguo (王定國), whom the selection committee called a Chinese social activist, but is better known as the only surviving woman to have taken part in the Long March; Peking University professor Tang Yijie (湯一介), an expert on Confucinism and Taoism; 82-year-old Chinese rice researcher Yuan Longping (袁龍萍) and 22-year-old Gyaltsen Norbu, the 11th Panchen Lama (the one appointed by Beijing, not the real one).
The Taipei Times correctly picked then-Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin as the winner of last year’s prize, though not for the same reason the award committee did. The newspaper selected him as the least likely to contribute to world peace and therefore the most likely to win, based upon the selection of Taiwan’s former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) as the winner of the inaugural award for his role in developing cross-strait relations. It turns out Putin won for “enhancing his country’s status and crushing anti-government forces in Chechnya.”
However, as in previous years, there appears to be confusion surrounding the prize and its selection process. Last year, it was the China Native Art Association’s Culture Protection Bureau that said it was organizing the prize, while this year the China International Peace Research Center is claiming the honor. The first year, Tan Changliu (譚長流) claimed to be “Confucius Peace Prize jury chairman.” Now, Time magazine and other sources say it is none other than the Peking professor and ultra-nationalist Kong Qingdong (孔慶東) who claims to be the brain behind the prize. Kong’s previous claim to fame is that he is a 73rd-generation descendant of Confucius. This spring he labeled Hong Kong residents “dogs” and “thieves” after a video of Chinese tourists eating on a metro train and being scolded for doing so.
Whoever is behind the award, the real reason for its existence is not to promote world peace from an “Eastern” perspective, it is to hog some of Norway’s Nobel Peace Prize limelight. So, again, the Confucius prize will be announced a day ahead, on Dec. 9.
What its organizers fail to appreciate is that while they may have been initially angered when the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to jailed Chinese dissident writer Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), each mention of the Confucius prize simply brings up Liu’s name. Liu, who is serving an 11-year prison sentence for co-authoring an appeal for political reform, is getting more ink in prison than he did outside.
Besides, Asia already has its own “Nobels” in the Ramon Magsaysay Awards, given out to scientists, environmentalists, social workers, doctors, artists — and this year, Taiwan’s own vegetable seller-cum-philantropist Chen Shu-chu (陳樹菊) — who in their own fields and their own ways have worked to make the world a better place. Fourteen Chinese have won a Magsaysay prize since 1994, but that is apparently not good enough for the Confucius folks, or the Chinese government, which is known to be desperate to have a “real” Chinese Nobel laureate as opposed to an “overseas Chinese” or a jailed dissident.
With Annan failing in his recent peace drive in Syria — and Ban not having much luck himself — the odds might be on Yingluck to take the prize. She has done nothing for world peace, or to bring the rival red and yellow factions of Thai society together, which of course makes her an ideal candidate.
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