Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Tuesday, May 23, 2000Taiwan president tries
to reassure BeijingTAIWAN'S new president, in his inaugural address, tried to assure China's leaders that he wanted reconciliation. Beijing responded to Chen Shui-bian's remarks by reiterating that the "one China principle" remains a precondition to improving relations.The issue: Taiwan's new president, Chen Shui-bian, has been inaugurated while rejecting Beijing's demand that he embrace the "one China" principle.
Nevertheless China seems to be taking Chen's assumption of leadership of Taiwan with equanimity. There were no dire threats of invasion, only the standard warning by the official news agency that "Anybody who dares insist on splitting Taiwan from China must bear responsibility for all the serious consequences."
Tension has eased as Chen has shown himself to be not at all disposed to mounting a direct challenge to China. Although he was formerly an advocate of independence for Taiwan, Chen backed away from that position when he ran for president on the opposition party ticket. Instead he said there was no need to declare independence because Taiwan is already independent.
Indeed it is, but as in the old story about the emperor with no clothes, it's best not to call attention to awkward facts -- particularly when it could start a war.
Since his election in a three-way race, Chen has make it clear he wants to maintain and improve relations with China -- while maintaining Taiwan's de facto independence.
Chen broke new ground on Sunday, the following day his inauguration, by saying he hoped to negotiate an end to what he called Taiwan's outdated ban on direct trade, shipping and postal links with the mainland. Beijing has long sought such direct ties, not only to make shipments and flights less expensive by avoiding the need to go through Hong Kong, but also as a way to draw Taiwan into closer ties with the mainland.
Taiwan has pointed to security concerns as justification for maintaining the ban, but its business leaders have been pressing for abolition because of the costs.
Taiwan interests have invested billions of dollars in the mainland and much of Taiwan's trade is with Beijing. The concern in Taipei is that excessive reliance on the Chinese market would made it more difficult for Taiwan to maintain its independence.
To negotiate such an agreement obviously would require Beijing to consent to talks. Chen may be trying to lure China into negotiations without acceding to Beijing's demand that he first accept the one-China principle.
Both sides seem to be maneuvering to determine the limits of their rival's bargaining flexibility. That's encouraging because the presumption is that at some point negotiations will be resumed.
Once talks begin, Taiwan and Beijing will find a way eventually to accommodate each other's interests -- if they want to. Remember the emperor's clothes.
Freedom for cable TV
CONGRESS traditionally has had broad leeway to regulate the broadcast industry, partly because of its accessibility to children. Now, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has sharply limited congressional power over cable television because of its capability to provide customized programming.
The 5-4 ruling was a victory for Playboy Enterprises Inc. in the transmission of its Spice and Playboy channels, but it represents a significant and welcome departure from the general assumption that Congress may restrict images that appear on television sets.
The restriction at issue was a provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It prohibited cable companies from running sexually explicit shows during much of the day unless they installed devices that block those signals from nonsubscribers.
It was aimed at preventing portions of insufficiently scrambled signals of sexual programming from entering the homes of nonsubscribers.
In Hawaii, Oceanic Cablevision blocks those signals entirely from nonsubscribers. Even in areas where such signals are scrambled by the cable company, the ban was absurd because parents could obtain free blocking devices that filter out sexual content altogether.
"Even upon the assumption that the government has an interest in substituting itself for informed and empowered parents, its interest is not sufficiently compelling to justify this widespread restriction on speech," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.
The decision left intact the power of Congress to regulate television stations and networks. "There is...a key difference between cable television and the broadcast media," Kennedy wrote. "Cable systems have the capacity to block unwanted channels on a household-by-household basis."
The extent to which cable companies will carry their newly gained freedom is questionable.
Don't look for nudity to suddenly appear on channels where it has been edited out. Cable channels can be expected to continue deleting sexual scenes from movies to make them suitable for family viewing.
The Supreme Court ruling should result in cable companies reassessing their role in the entertainment industry. The viewing public stands to benefit from greater freedoms exercised on the TV screen.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
