It was pleasing to see actress and UNICEF goodwill ambassador Mia Farrow put some pressure on Chinese diplomats a few weeks ago when, in view of the Darfur atrocities and China's loathsome role in Sudan, she asked film director Steven Spielberg a rather direct question.
The question was: Wouldn't Spielberg be a latter-day Leni Riefenstahl if he continued to work on the opening and closing ceremonies in Beijing?
This is something we also asked some time ago, and it would be interesting to hear a direct response to the question from Spielberg himself. How interesting a direct response it might be, too, given that Spielberg's indirect response in recent days had a startling effect: The image of Darfur and the butchery presided over there by Beijing's allies in Khartoum has suddenly, magically -- like in a movie -- become an issue for the Chinese.
Spielberg undoubtedly has zero tolerance of genocidal behavior or people who espouse it. But is this wonderful director -- and long-time financier of Holocaust oral histories -- prepared to cut deals with politicians who gain from it? Possibly, but surely only if he were ignorant of China's history, society and behavior in developing countries.
In this, Spielberg would not be alone. Hein Verbruggen, the chairman of the coordination commission of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), recently told a Beijing audience that: "We have ... such an amount of requests from countries that don't ask for anything better than to be part of the [Olympic] torch relay that I have problems to imagine that a country does not want the torch relay.
"And that goes for Taiwan too. I have problems believing that there is a country that would willingly refuse that to their population," he said.
That's the point. Taiwan is not treated as a country by the IOC because China dictates this to be so. And Verbruggen seems so entranced by the mythology of the torch that he fails to understand why a Taiwanese government might block its entry or, indeed, that somewhere on Earth there are people who couldn't care less about the Olympics.
Almost surprisingly, the Democratic Progressive Party this week saw sense and rejected any route in which the torch proceeds directly between the two countries, including Hong Kong and Macau. This came in response to the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, which disgraced itself by not standing up to Chinese propaganda when it supported a route from Taiwan to China via Hong Kong.
But this might not be enough. If -- when -- the Chinese use the Olympics to cast aspersions on Taiwan's self-determination and democracy, then the government must go to the next level.
Steven Spielberg applied his principles to influence the Chinese on their misconduct in Africa, and should be admired for doing so.
But if the IOC cannot likewise learn about what is happening in the Taiwan Strait and change its mercenary, patronizing tune with regard to Taiwan in the months to come, then it bodes ill. China will use the Olympics as a buttress for its autocracy, and Taiwan will be subjected to the same old propaganda, but at a level of hysteria and on a scope that only the Chinese can pull off.
Mischievous or stupendously ignorant: Verbruggen can only be one or the other. If it is the latter, then he has an excuse of sorts, but only for so long.
If we have to wait much longer for Verbruggen and his colleagues to get with the picture, then a Taiwanese boycott of the Beijing Games will be the only option.
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS