What would it have taken for China to avoid the onslaught of criticism that has rained on its Olympic parade? Just days into the Games that China has spent seven years preparing as a symbol of its rising strength and wealth, concern about Beijing’s iron grip on basic freedoms continues to cast a shadow on the celebration.
What has become a public relations disaster for Beijing might have been stemmed with some key — if ultimately insincere — concessions to its critics. Instead, the Games have again illustrated China’s poor understanding of what makes the free world tick.
Even basic public relations in dealing with the West seem to elude its decision-makers. China never stood to gain from blocking “sensitive” Web sites at its foreign media center, a move that was bound to spark an outcry. The majority of the thousands of international reporters covering the Games come from countries with unfettered Web access. They very likely had no interest in spending their time in Beijing browsing Falun Gong Web sites. Censoring the Web, however, quickly turned Beijing’s fear of international news sites and repression of dissident voices into a top story just a week before the opening ceremony.
The ensuing clash between Beijing and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) — ending in the IOC backing down on uncensored Web access for reporters — only hammered this impression into the minds of a global audience.
With the Games now in full swing, the furor over media restrictions shows no sign of receding. Although Radio Free Asia received permission from the IOC to send two reporters to the Games, Beijing let its Chinese-speaking correspondent into the country, but blocked its Tibetan-speaking reporter. And despite reports of unrest in Xinjiang, journalists are being denied access, while two Japanese reporters were mistreated by police there last week.
China has been equally inept at presenting a positive face to Taiwanese spectators. Where a little respect would have gone a long way in building trust, Beijing instead rolled out the title Zhongguo Taibei in the lead-up to the Games, blocked Taiwanese cheerleaders from entering the country and insisted on referring to Taiwan’s “home team” advantage in Beijing.
From the day China bound itself to human rights pledges in exchange for hosting the 2008 Olympics, a barrage of criticism from activists of its rights record was inevitable. But offering even a few concessions would have helped China convince observers that it is making gradual progress.
The Duihua Foundation, arguably the group that has made the most progress in securing the release of prisoners of conscience in China, suggested Beijing offer a gesture of progress ahead of the Games. An “Olympic pardon” of long-term prisoners — freeing the remaining Tiananmen activists jailed since 1989 — could make a lasting, positive impression, Duihua argued.
Instead, Beijing has stepped up its “war on terrorism” and clamped down even more tightly on dissidents, particularly in the capital, carrying out a series of “clean-up” detentions and arrests to silence domestic critics in time for the Games.
Beijing must now deal with the consequences of its choice: an international community that has only grown more skeptical and is concerned that, rather than improving its record to meet Olympic pledges, China has backtracked on the freedoms that it grants its population.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in