Hanban Tries To Erase Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation's Contribution to EACS Conference
Yesterday, the Liberty Times broke with the story of pages ripped from the conference brochures of the European Association of Chinese Studies (EACS) which noted the contribution, in funding and broader academic support, of the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation. For those unfamiliar with this organisation, here is an abbreviated description from their website:
The Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Taipei, the capital of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It also maintains a regional office in McLean, Virginia near Washington D.C. in the United States. The Foundation was established in 1989 in honor of the late President Chiang Ching-kuo.
In 1987, a group of professors of Chinese descent at major American universities wrote a joint letter to President Chiang Ching-kuo expressing their concern about the gradual decline of programs of Chinese Studies in overseas academic institutions. They suggested that, given the increased prosperity of the country, a foundation for international scholarly exchange should be established to support and promote the understanding of Chinese culture and society overseas. They believed that, in the long run, such an organization would both strengthen the bonds between foreign and domestic scholarly communities and enhance the international standing of the Republic of China on Taiwan.
President Chiang Ching-kuo accepted the recommendation ...
After his death, government officials continued to work to establish the foundation. Under the Ministry of Education's supervision, the Foundation was organized and named the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange.
The Foundation's original endowment comes from two sectors, public and private. US$53 million was originally allocated by the ROC Ministry of Education and US$ 33 million came from private donors. The operational funds of the Foundation derive from the interest generated by this endowment.
And here's some background on EACS:
Founded in 1975, the Paris-based EACS is an international association representing European academics specializing in Chinese studies. It has more than 700 members.
The latest EACS conference was being held at Universidade do Minho and Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal. Universidade do Minho has a Confucius Institute, which is run by the Chinese National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language at China’s Ministry of Education, often referred to simply as 'Hanban'. Hanban is a very political organisation and openly acknowledges its mission as a promoter of Chinese 'soft power' in academic institutions worldwide. It's Director-General is a woman called Xu Lin (許琳). She is also an advisor to China's State Council.
The original EACS conference brochure included a page featuring the CCK Foundation which had donated some NT$650,000 to the event. Here's a picture of that page (from Liberty Times):
And here's a picture of the brochure the conference attendees received minus the CCK Foundation page, which had been ripped out (also via Liberty Times):
The response of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council to this form of censorship and academic bullying was rapid, if restrained:
"The mainland should deal with Taiwan's participation in activities on international occasions pragmatically," the Cabinet-level Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) said Monday in a statement.
"If there is no respect for each other, the development of cross-strait relations will be seriously hurt."
The foundation was invited to sponsor and participate in the conference for academic and cultural exchanges, the MAC said, and the mainland's unfriendly move has triggered unnecessary controversy and hurt the feelings of the 23 million people in Taiwan.
"For this, we felt deep regret and disappointment," it said.
"The positive exchange of cross-strait relations will hinge on both sides addressing reality and respecting each other," it said.
It called on China to treat Taiwan in a friendly way at international events because otherwise it will adversely affect the development of cross-strait ties.
The MAC's timid response is indicative of the way the Ma Administration has answered numerous incidents of Chinese bullying of Taiwanese and Taiwanese institutions on the international stage. Since this Government has placed so much value on Improved Cross-Strait Relations ™ it's approach to dealing with Beijing's outright contravention of Ma's stated Diplomatic Truce ™ has been more often obsequious than self-respecting, much to the annoyance of many Taiwanese. Utilising PRC Chinese nomenclature such as 'hurt the feelings of ...' only serves to reinforce the impression of Taipei not only kowtowing to Zhongnanhai but also aping it. Calling on Beijing to treat Taiwan in a friendly way is akin to asking the bully to take your lunch money on Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Not only does Beijing not care if Taiwan feels deep regret and disappointment, it will still continue to claim that it has bent over backwards to help its Taiwan compatriots via ECFA, the Service Trade Agreement, and various purchasing trips by Chinese officials. Regardless, incidents like this have only conclusively proven that Ma's claims of President Chen provoking the PRC hurting Taiwan diplomatically were fabricated for election purposes. Beijing took its foot off Taiwan's neck briefly after Ma was elected, and then replaced it with an elbow.
Back to the story in hand, today, the Liberty Times sister paper, the Taipei Times, also ran a report on the incident:
A foundation official who wished to remain anonymous told the Taipei Times by telephone that the foundation sent a letter to the EACS yesterday to register its “unhappiness” over the incident that took place on Tuesday last week at the opening ceremony of the 20th conference of the EACS.
She said the foundation had not been aware of the incident until it was reported by the Chinese-language Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) yesterday.
“The EACS owes us an explanation. It not only hurt our foundation, but also the nation as a whole,” the foundation’s executive said.
The Taipei Times report, oddly out of line with the CNA and Liberty Times articles which had found Hanban to blame, seemed to imply that the CCK Foundation was pointing the finger at EACS as the responsible body, whilst absenting the role of Hanban and the Confucius Institute at the Universidade do Minho. After I tweeted about why CCK Foundation was pissed off at EACS, a received this tweet in return:
Suspecting that the CCK Foundation was scared of confronting Hanban (to some extent a rival organisation), I called the foundation. I told them about the article in the Taipei Times and asked them why they were blaming EACS and whether this was because they were scared of confronting Hanban. I also asked them whether they knew it was Hanban who had ripped out the pages and that Xu Lin was responsible, this being a blatant case of Chinese bullying of Taiwan. The kind lady on the phone immediately confirmed that they knew it was the Confucius Institute and Xu Lin of Hanban that had ripped out the pages, that EACS wasn't responsible, and that they had a long standing and very good relationship with EACS. Upon hearing this, I told them to investigate the 'anonymous official' who made those comments and to contact the Taipei Times to make a clarification. I left my name and number.
Some thirty minutes later, I got another call from another lady from the CCK Foundation. She reiterated the points made in the previous call and blamed the Taipei Times for misreporting comments. She may or may not also have added some politically partisan comments against the Liberty Times and Taipei Times but since my Chinese is not quite good enough to catch that nuance I can't confirm it. When I told her about the 'anonymous official' she said, "Yes, that was me". I then clarified with her that it was China's Hanban (she used the word 'DaLu', I used 'Zhongguo') which had carried out the offending act and that the report in the Taipei Times made it seem like she was angry with EACS. She again, vociferously denied that she or her foundation had any problem with EACS or held them responsible. I then strongly suggested that she contact the Taipei Times to clarify, a course of action she agreed was necessary.
Still, little things irk me about the Foundation's claims that the Taipei Times misrepresented them. Did they or did they not send a letter to EACS to register their unhappiness and if so why send it to EACS and not Hanban or the Confucius Institute at the university concerned? Also why state that EACS owes them an explanation and not not Hanban or the Confucius Institute? Did they actually say that the censorship had hurt the foundation and the nation or not?
I now wait for tomorrow's Taipei Times to see if they publish a follow up story with a clarification and whether that clarification includes accurate quotes from the CCK Foundation absolving EACS of responsibility and holding Hanban responsible.
UPDATE: After asking for further information about what happened I received these tweets:
