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
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS