I expected my article (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) published in the Taipei Times, to create a stir and wrote it to spark a debate over how Taiwan should respond to the affront on its sovereignty. Marcel Oppliger’s well-crafted riposte (“Yeoh is welcome back any time,” March 29, page 8) articulates several good arguments against my position — that the actress should be banned for coming to Taiwan to engage in pro-China propaganda undermining Taiwanese sovereignty — but ultimately fails to build a convincing argument for why Taiwan should tolerate such behavior without severe repercussions.
Oppliger wrote that media reports indicate Yeoh referred to Taiwan as a country in remarks at the Tiffany & Co party at Taipei 101 prior to her loathsome social media post. However, that only shows that Yeoh acted quite consciously in a premeditated way to join China’s cognitive warfare and propaganda against Taiwan. That was not a flippant post erring on the side of economic caution, rather it was a calculated act to appease Beijing.
Oppliger’s piece suggests that Taiwan asserting control of its own borders would “risk making Taiwan look petty and resentful,” but there is nothing petty about denying entry to foreign propagandists engaged in cognitive warfare against the country. Sovereign states have the right to determine who is eligible for entry, and national security considerations are neither petty nor resentful.
The claim that Beijing would love to promote the headline “Michelle Yeoh banned from Taiwan” could not be further from the truth. Beijing loathes mention of any implication that Taiwan might have control over its own borders as a sovereign state. In fact, such a headline would not even be published by any Chinese media, which are only allowed to refer to Taiwan as “China’s Taiwan.” Beijing would certainly struggle to explain the implications of such a headline, as it would imply China had a role in the decision.
Rather, China would seek to downplay the story, which demonstrates precisely the importance of such an act. It would seize global headlines, demonstrating plainly and clearly for the world that Taiwan is a sovereign state with control of its own borders.
Equating that ban with China’s notorious human rights record is not just laughable, but bordering on offensive. Countries such as Australia and Canada regularly ban public figures from entering based on public comments, yet no one questions whether those states are democracies that generally respect human rights. By contrast, China is an authoritarian state that has been credibly accused and found guilty of genocide, with no pretensions to democracy.
I admire Oppliger’s call for Taiwan to instead invite Yeoh to return for a publicity tour highlighting the nation’s democracy and diverse freedoms. However, we all know she would not accept such an invitation. Those actors and public figures know what they are doing when they deny Taiwan’s very existence and support Chinese propaganda. It is high time they started paying the consequences for their actions.
Sasha B. Chhabra is a visiting fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taipei.
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