NY Philharmonic goes ahead with Taiwan visit
NewsAmid mounting tension over the territory’s future, the New York Philharmonic today confirmed that it will perform two concerts in Taipei and a third in Kaohsiung (pictured) in June-July. Jaap Van Zweden will conduct, with Hilary Hahn as soloist.
The orchestra will then proceed to Hong Kong and Shanghi. Its final concert will involve musicians from the Shanghai Symphony and students from the Shanghai Orchestra Academy.
Political circumstances permitting.
I’m surprised we haven’t gotten to the point that China would block a group from performing in China after appearing in Taiwan. Perhaps just a matter of time.
Block for what?
You’ve really not been paying attention, have you?
That time may come but a great deal will have to happen beforehand. The situation is very far from that of, say, Israel and many Arab countries until recently.
Despite all the rhetoric from Beijing, Taiwan is still one of the big investors in the mainland with hundreds of thousands of Chinese employed by Taiwan companies. More than 40% of Taiwan’s exports are to China and the Taipei Tourism Bureau is expecting more than 1 million tourists from the mainland in 2023.
Re orchestras and musicians, tours from overseas regularly take in cities in both Taiwan and China. And musicians from each territory continually travel to give concerts in the other. Similarly most tourists from other parts of the world can travel between the two with the required visas.
“Political corcumstances [sic] permitting.” one of today’s conspicuous typos: caught!
Have we forgotten that the NYPhil played in North Korea during the W Bush administration some 15 years ago? I know before the pandemic Chicago Symphony was touring Taiwan.
Taiwan is a beautiful country. It deserves any visitors the nation welcomes.
No need to make a fuss in the news about it. Western orchestras visit Taiwan all the time. The Taiwan Philharmonic toured the US in 2018 too.
Surely Yu Long will find his way to be a part of this tour; he is every conductor everywhere in China region, all at once. My nephew saw him rolling in his Rolls Royce not too long ago. As long as Long gets to play ball, the game is on.
I’ve always looked forward to CSO tours to Taipei. Taiwan is a physically gorgeous country with extraordinary food and gracious people. There is a wonderful energy about Taipei.
Why are they bothering with this? These trips always feature bog-standard old warhorses that are ready for the glue factory. It is almost certain that they will not perform contemporary American music on this junket. It is a huge waste of money and resources, and that does not even take into account the political considerations. It would be much better if they attempted to reach out to underserved populations in their own area, of which there are many.
You’re living in a strange reality if you think the sole purpose of a world class symphonic orchestra is to perform American contemporary music for underserved communities in it’s area. Attend your local contemporary ensembles for that.
Sigh..I wish for a better orchestra to visit Taipei.
Where was CR Wang I wonder when the Vienna Philharmonic gave concerts last year, or other concerts in Taipei and sometimes also Kaohsiung by the Berlin Philharmonic, the Czech Philharmonic, the Royal Concertgebouw, the Bavarian Radio Symphony, the San Francisco Symphony or the several tours by the Dresden Staatskapelle – on the last occasion with Thielemann conducting and Yuja Wang as soloist? Taipei has a vibrant cultural life with, in addition, recitals by many major international musicians.
There’s no need to call a Taiwan a “territory”. Taiwan is a de facto country that was never part of the People’s Republic of China. It’s a thriving democracy that on the Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders regularly ranks among the first Asian countries, and in the worldwide ranking it’s even placed before Australia and the USA.
In terms of classical music, the Taiwanese are a most warm-hearted, attentive and enthusiastic public, anyone who has ever performed there will certify that, so it’s understandable why the NYPO wish to return there as part of their tour.
Allegri, you should check your history! During the Cairo Conference in WWII, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that all the territories stolen by the Japanese in Asia would be returned to the sovereign powers in place beforehand. This was ratified at the later Potsdam Conference. Thus Singapore and Malaya were returned to Britain, a colonial power which had seized those lands in 1819 and 1824 respectively from the indigenous peoples. Indo-China was returned to the French whose brutal colonial regime had started only 80 years earlier. Yet Beijing had been the sovereign power in Taiwan since 1683 – 212 years prior to the Japanese occupation at the turn of the century. How do you reconcile a return of lands to Britain and France on the one hand but not a return to Beijing on the other?
There are those who maintain that it was returned to the murdering gangster Chiang Kai Shek’s China which was allegedly democratic. Only it wasn’t in the least democratic. When Mao’s army beat Chiang’s and Chiang made his hasty retreat to Taiwan, he continued his undemocratic and murdering ways – basically loathed by the indigenous Taiwanese. His dictatorship and martial law continued in Taiwan until after his death in 1975.
The fact that the US was furious that Mao had taken over China and it suddenly faced two large communist countries in Asia can in no way negate historical facts. For almost a quarter of a century of the Cold War, the US armed Chiang whose sole ambition was to return and reconquer the mainland. But then the US did an abrupt about turn with Nixon’s visit to Mao in 1971. Suddenly Taiwan was basically dropped in the s–t. As included in various Treaties, the US agreed that there is only one China, that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China and that independence for Taiwan is not supported. It only stated that reunification should be peaceful.
Now the US, having spent the better part of 25 years since 1990 helping China become a great power, has turned turtle again. Like most pepole I despise Xi Xinping’s rhetoric. Equally, though, I find it self-serving of the USA to talk up independence. The fact is that in June 2020 a poll conducted by The Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation found that only 54% of Taiwanese people support de jure independence. It would help the discussions on the island’s future if the world realised that after coming up for 3 generations since Chiang fled to Taiwan in 1949, many of the descendents of his 2 million followers who accompanied him to Taiwan actually seek a return of the island to China. Politics in Taiwan is vastly more complicated than most casual outside observers assume. I say this as one who visits Taiwan several times a year and has an abiding love of the island and its people.
On the other hand, as for classical music I wholeheartedly agree with Allegri. I have attended many concerts and recitals in the wonderful acoustics of Taipei’s main Concert Hall. When Sir Andras Schiff gave an all-Bach recital about 5 years ago in a programme that included the Goldberg Variations, the packed audience of 2,000 appeared to have an average age of around 40-45 with many young people. They listened enrapt and you could have heard the proverbial pin drop. Schiff played four encores that lasted a good 30 minutes!
One of the most interesting comments I’ve ever read on SD.
You might want to make a timeline and see that the Cairo conference preceded the division of ROC and PRC by six years. It is an irrefutable fact that the government of the PRC has never governed Taiwan in any way, shape, or form.
The Republic of China, aka Taiwan/Formosa, is culturally more Chinese than mainland People’s Republic of China, given its fortunate save from experiencing the Great Leap Forward [sic] and the Cultural Revolution of the PRC.
That really is a non-sequitur and the second paragraph is factually incorrect. You are proposing a frankly facile suggestion that just because the government of a country changes, international agreements and treaties become null and void! It also has zero basis in historical fact, as far as I can discern. Chiang’s government in China was engaged in a civil war with Mao’s troops. The country had been in a state of total chaos almost continuously for nearly 150 years. Agreed, it was itself responsible for the decaying Imperial system and the belief that it was still the centre of the world.
In 1911 Sun Yat Sen then led the revolution that changed China to what he had hoped would become at least a quasi democracy. He got rid of the ultra-conservative and ineffective Imperial system, changed the country’s governance and its name. Did that lead the world to consider that China was a different country? Of course not! Unfortunately Sun died before his reforms could take hold. This led to a period of struggle and the rise of warlords – and eventually conquest of a part of the country by Japan.
The fact that Chiang lost the civil war and Mao took over did not change China one iota in international terms. The land area remained the same. The people remained the same. Only the internal politics changed and the country changed its name again. If you really are suggesting that this renders China a different county internationally, then the government in Sri Lanka is illegal because the country’s name was formerly Ceylon. Similarly Thailand is illegal as it legally changed its name from Siam. Siam, for your information, was never colonised!
Take the argument further and consider what happens every time the government of the UK changes from one party to another. Does that have any affect on previously signed international treaties and agreements? Of course not! Only the new government can do that if it so wishes. Has international recognition to the Czech and Slovak Republics changed since they decided to split? Like it or not – and I am fully aware that most nowadays do not – the country that was China in 1800 is the same China as it was in 1850, 1900, 1950 and remains so today.
Which part of your long diatribe contradicts the statement that Taiwan was never ever part of the People’s Republic of China? Not one…
And yes, Taiwan was a dictatorship for a long time (although not nearly as heinous as Mao’s totalitarian regime that murdered up to 100 million people!), but in 2023 it has been a thriving democracy for decades.
There is no doubt which part of China deserves to be backed by any democratic country in the world. And the Biden administratin gets it, apparently.
Back in 1949 it was just two regimes each occupying one piece of land, getting ready for another ‘CIVIL war’. It wasn’t that different from the the case in the US some 80 years before that. But it soon (in the scale of human history) became unlikely that there would be another war in near future, given the huge gap of power and PRC too busy destroying what they just acquired. In 1992 ROC and PRC came together and agreed on ‘there is only one China’ but the caveat being each side would keep interpreting ‘China’ in its own way. At that time, peace and economic development was of top priority and thus we had such ambiguous compromise. But then came 1) KMT losing ground in Taiwan 2) three generations later, young people in Taiwan have little nationalistic recognizing left, of themselves being ‘the real China’ 3) growing tension between PRC and the west, we’re just starting to see the dust inder the rug now.
Yet more adjustment of history, unfortunately. It was in fact in 1972 that the US and China – not the ROC and PRC – agreed in the Shanghai Communique that “the United States acknowledges that the Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”
Then in the 1982 joint US/China Communique the USA went one stage further, stating it had no intention of pusuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”
As far as I am aware, and do correct me if I am wrong, Taiwan has never acknowledged with the PRC that there is that “there is only one China.”
Niloiv’s comments about the KMT (the Kuomintang party once led by Chiang Kai Shek) losing ground were once true. But since Nancy Pelosi’s visit, it has gained ground. The present ruling Democratic Progressive Party suffered a stunning defeat in last December’s elections. The KMT actually gained ground with Chiang’s grandson Chiang Wan-an winning a seat in Taipei.This led to the President stepping down as Chairperson of the DPP to accept responsibililty for the losses. As I have stated, Taiwan politics are far more complicated than most assume.
Hugo Preuss has his ideas on the Biden administration’s policy towards China and Taiwan totally wrong. The existing legislation passed after Nixon’s visit to China gives the US the right to “preserve and promote extensive, close and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan.” The resultant US/China agreement states that the US decision to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC “rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means”.
Biden made two gaffes last year about there being a military agreement with Taiwan. The White House spin machine had quickly to backtrack and confirm that no such agreement exists. It does have defence agreeents with Japan and South Korea. Not with Taiwan.
However much Biden may loathe Xi, he is not going to disappear any time soon. Biden and his administration cannot unilaterally change existing treaties with China. Nor can they make war on China over Taiwan. Only Congress has the power to authorise war. We are no longer in the Nixon era when illegal wars took place in Laos and Cambodia, and only on what were later found to be lies in the case of Vietnam. Is there a chance Congress will take such action for a war on the other side of the world with a China obviousy well prepared for such a fight? I canot see the US public being prepared for such a conflagration. What Biden should be doing is using intensive diplomacy to reduce tensions instead of ratcheting them up.
Look up the definition of country. Ask the people of Taiwan how much they would want to give up their freedoms to be a part of the PRC (accounting for fear tactics by various sources of propaganda).
And—well—please let us know when the CCP has governed Taiwan; I suggest you refrain from further commentary/diatribes until you can supply evidence.
Indeed, one government can claim something as its own all it wants, but that doesn’t mean much, does it all?
Consider the nine/ten/eleven-dash line, for example.
Countries are a combination of geography and governing body.
Unlike Gerry Feinsteen I have supplied a good deal of evidence both historical and present day political. What evidence has he provided? Alas, almost none other than purely personal views. As far as the people of Taiwan are concerned, of whom several have been good and close friends for many years, there is as I have written several times no one view. Taiwanese are split on the issue as is evident both in polling and the results of the most recent elections. Now where is Gerry Feinsteen’s evidence?
Nick2, copy and paste evidence of the CCP governing Taiwan. You can share all this history and your little personal anecdotes all you want but you don’t have a shred of evidence that the CCP ever governed Taiwan.
We cannot trust polling. The CCP is far too heated in its threats to “itself.”
If it’s all as simple as you describe, what’s all the fuss?
You’ll come back at me with some nonsense reply, and list a bunch of dates you found on Wikipedia five minutes before typing your hollow reply. You will never find a piece anything anywhere that demonstrates the CCP governing Taiwan. Look up the definition of country and go back to your Xi-worship cave. You’re lost.
Fortunately music can be a source of peace. You should visit Taiwan some day. I have had work there almost every year since 1983. It’s not mainland China.
Mr. Feinsteen has this very original yet distinctly odd view that China ceased to be China after 1949! As I have stated and is perfectly obvious to most rational people, no country ceases to be a country just because its government changes. Did England cease to be England when it ceased to be a monarchy after the execution of King Charles 1 and thereafter during the Oliver Cromwell years? Of course not! Did Russia cease to be Russia after the revolution of 1918? Of course not! As more perceptive readers will have noted, China had been the sovereign power in Taiwan for over 200 years before its annexation by Japan. Both Churchill and Roosevelt agreed the island be returned to China after WWII. That as I have clearly stated is fact and nothing Mr. Feinsteen writes can alter that fact.
Mr. Feinsteen also does not read my posts. I have been visiting Taiwan regularly since 1986. In the last 10 years or so that has meant a minimum of 3 or 4 times each year. He has also failed to note my comments about my attendance at many concerts in Taipei, especially those in the excellent CKS Cultural Centre Concert Hall. He has also failed to note that I have good and close friends on Taiwan. As with the government and the polls, Taiwanese are split on the subject of Independence. And nothing Mr. Feinstein writes can alter that fact.
Make no sense to try to explain. . People here are washed in mind and accept only what cheap US propaganda tell them without ask themselves “Is this can be true?”
Perhaps add Cuba to the itinerary next time?