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.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS