I remember how, in the height of summer many years ago and eager for social reform, I took part in a book club organized by the Solidarity of Communication Students, at which I met some leading reformists in the field of communication studies, such as Feng Chien-san (馮建三) and Kuo Li-hsin (郭力昕). These teachers inspired me to take part in a reform movement that called for putting media outlets into the hands of the public and establishing the Taiwan Broadcasting System.
We went hiking in the hills with those academic forbears and had long conversations about topics such as Critical Theory.
These experiences have shaped my career in media and politics, and I am very grateful to those teachers for having taught me so much.
As I recall, the book club members often cited examples from Japan, South Korea, the UK and Europe to call for state resources to be invested in the development of public broadcasting.
They called for Taiwan to follow the BBC’s example by bolstering its home-grown film and television culture, promoting public media, and helping Taiwan resist Chinese and Western cultural imperialism. As a former member of the Campaign for Media Reform, from my student days until now, I have throughout the course of my political work been concerned about Taiwan’s policies in the field of communications. Although my words have little influence, I remain mindful of those original ideals.
As ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle said of his mentor: “Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth.”
At a news conference on Monday last week to launch their “anti-war statement,” the four professors on the panel repeatedly chided US imperialism for setting fires around the world, but when reporters asked them about China’s role, they shrugged off the question by saying that cross-strait relations were not their field of study.
A “content analysis” of the news conference revealed that, out of their speeches adding up to more than an hour, fewer than five sentences and less than five minutes were devoted to China, whereas more than 90 percent was devoted to the threat posed by US imperialism. From my point of view as their former student, such speeches were not only weak and shallow, but also inconsistent with the rigorous academic standards that these senior academics once adhered to.
The Western democratic camp is no longer as strong as it was 20 years ago. It now faces the rise of Chinese hegemony and Eastern imperialism, which, under the leadership of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), aims to supplant the leading position of the US and replace the universal values of democracy with the ideology of centralized authority.
However, while leftists used to vigorously denounce US imperialist expansionism, they tended to be quiet about two other great powers — the Soviet Union and China — who used socialism to control people’s lives and create centralized imperialisms, as opposed to capitalist imperialism.
Furthermore, Feng’s and Kuo’s long-standing advocacy of using film and television culture to resist cultural imperialism has long ceased to correspond to current realities. Under today’s conditions, Taiwan needs to link up with the resources of the Western democratic camp in all fields to counter China’s multifaceted cultural and military encroachment.
Focusing solely on film and television culture would not be enough to counter brainwashing in the age of alternative and social media, and short-form videos.
Furthermore, the professors’ anti-war discourse implied that Taiwan should keep an equal distance from China and the US, but they seemed to ignore that China, with its aggressive ambitions, is geographically much closer to Taiwan than the US, so that Chinese warplanes would only need a few minutes to reach Taiwan’s airspace and launch an attack.
Such disregard for geopolitics is quite chilling. The professors have also forgotten their previous responses to the human rights appeals emanating from Tibetans and Uighurs, and have selectively forgotten the support that US leftist academic Noam Chomsky expressed for Hong Kong’s struggle for democracy.
The professors should be admired for their enthusiastic opposition to war, which has not waned despite their advanced age, but they unfortunately failed to see that the global situation has changed and Taiwan’s sovereignty is in danger.
Humanity as a whole should be “anti-war,” but the professors’ statement makes the mistake of ignoring that China and Russia are aggressor states. Asking Taiwan to oppose war and give up its weapons is like asking a weakling to turn down offers of help and let a bully beat him black and blue. This is not the original meaning of “anti-war,” and the worrying thing is that the professors’ discourse might lead to injustice by indirectly endorsing or supporting China.
As a former student, I still believe in my teachers’ academic convictions and take them as a standard for myself.
However, dear teachers, as you stubbornly draw fire for your “anti-war” stance, as a humble student with little influence, I say to you: “I must disagree.”
Lin Ching-tang is a former member of the Campaign for Media Reform and a former convener of the Solidarity of Communication Students. He is currently a specialist in the Taiwan Statebuilding Party policy department.
Translated by Julian Clegg
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS