Most people understand the phrase “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
Most, but not Chinese officials visiting Taiwan. How else how could one explain Straits Exchange Foundation Secretary-General Kao Koong-lian’s (高孔廉) announcement on Wednesday that a “special zone” would be set up for protesters during next month’s cross-strait talks in Taichung?
Mention of a special zone brings to mind Beijing during last year’s Olympic Games, when Chinese officials designated three parks around the city where their disgruntled citizens could gather — if approved — to let off steam. This, of course, turned out to be a sham as none of the protests received official approval.
Chinese officials, it seems, would much rather hire thugs to lock people up in “black jails” than let them vent grievances or opinions that vary from the party line or cause official embarrassment.
While plans for Taichung’s “protest zone” have yet to be revealed, it is safe to say that it would will be located far away from the Chinese delegation’s hotel or any of the locations it will visit.
Such an outcome will be unacceptable to protesters, who will be unlikely to stay in the zones if the Chinese delegation is nowhere near.
Officials charged with protecting the Chinese are probably worried there will be a repeat of the scenes in Taipei last year, when Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) was trapped in a hotel until the early hours of the morning by protesters and spent much of the rest of his time in the Grand Hotel.
One could argue, however, that the protests turned violent last year as a result of police provocation and their initial overreaction in confiscating Republic of China (ROC) flags and manhandling dozens of peaceful protesters.
Chinese officials may not be used to directly encountering protests in their own country, and they may not want to admit to the existence of the ROC, but it will certainly not harm them to see a flag they don’t recognize or hear a dissenting voice.
Taiwan, after all, is a democracy where demonstrations are the norm. It should not be turned into a replica of China every time an important Chinese official visits. Chen and his colleagues should understand this and so should President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government.
The government has already repeated the message from last year that “lawful protesters” will be protected. If by “lawful” this means protesting within a special zone kilometers away from Chen and his entourage, however, it should not be surprised if there is a repeat of last year’s disorder. Short of holding the meetings on Green Island, it will be impossible to shield the Chinese from protests.
Of course, Chen’s personal safety should be paramount, but many other countries deal with protesters without resorting to such draconian measures. If ensuring Chen’s safety is going to temporarily turn Taiwan into a de facto vassal state and result in the disenfranchising of decent people trying to make their opinions heard, then it would be better for everyone if Chen not did not come to Taiwan and the talks were held in a third country such as Singapore, where Chinese delegations have long felt more at home.
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