Taiwan is a bastion for LGBTQ+ rights in Asia, and it wears the status proudly. Before the COVID-19 pandemic halted travel, people from across the region would make a pilgrimage to Taipei for its annual Pride parade in October, proudly waving their national flags remixed with the rainbow in a land where they are able to do so freely.
Given this track record, it was an honor when Kaohsiung was chosen to host the ninth WorldPride, a semi-biennial event licensed by InterPride with parades, festivals, conferences and other queer-centric events. With the exception of Jerusalem in 2006, every host city has been in a Western country, which would have made WorldPride Taiwan 2025 the first edition to fully realize the event’s global aspirations.
Yet for an organization whose purpose is to fight for human rights, InterPride has been disappointingly indulgent when it comes to self-determination.
The first sign of trouble came with the winner announcement. What was supposed to be a triumphant moment for Taiwan was undercut by InterPride mistakenly calling the nation a “region,” prompting a tripartite meeting convened by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in November last year to negotiate a correction. At that meeting, the three sides agreed on the name “WorldPride Taiwan 2025.”
Controversy that should have ended there resurfaced during contract negotiations and came to a head on Friday, when the WorldPride 2025 Taiwan Preparation Committee decided to terminate the event. The “final straw” was InterPride’s insistence that the event’s name use “Kaohsiung,” rather than “Taiwan,” suddenly reneging on their agreement. According to the committee, this was after InterPride repeatedly raised doubts as to whether Taiwan could host such a major event, as though the same people have not since 2003 been hosting one of the world’s largest annual Pride celebrations and successfully lobbied to create one of the world’s freest societies for LGBTQ+ people.
In a Facebook comment that is the closest it has come to a public statement on the issue, InterPride said it had suggested using the name “WorldPride Kaohsiung, Taiwan” and were “working with KH Pride to ensure they would deliver the event they promised to our members,” offering a glimpse into the condescending tone hinted at by the committee. An organizer later denied to the Central News Agency that they were ever given that option.
While former WorldPride events were named after the host city, InterPride had already agreed to using “Taiwan” in the name. The committee also justified its decision by citing Taiwan’s own Pride naming convention, which has never used the city name, and other Taiwanese cities’ participation in planned WorldPride events.
The trouble seems to trace back to the UN. During last year’s naming controversy, InterPride in a statement said it had been applying to receive consultative status at the global body and is therefore “aligning with United Nations requirements.”
InterPride is admittedly in a tricky situation. To influence the UN and therefore potentially further LGBTQ+ causes, it must bring itself under China’s influence. Yet it also involves compromising on its core beliefs to appease a government that would never dream of allowing an InterPride event within its borders. Attempting to walk the line has only helped legitimize Beijing’s claims while harming InterPride’s reputation and Taiwan’s LGBTQ+ community in its wake.
Other organizations should heed this lesson: China has carefully designed a strategy toward Taiwan and other human rights issues that bets on democratic participants wanting to find compromise. The only way to avoid falling into its trap is to take a firm and principled stance that refuses to abandon one cause for another.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS