I suggest we rename the "one China" policy to emphasize its true intent. Henceforth, we should call it the "we hope China doesn't bomb Taiwan, wipe out Tibet and turn Hong Kong into Tiananmen Square" policy.
It is inconceivable that any more than a handful of countries could believe Taiwan or Tibet belong to China, or that democracy in Hong Kong should be squashed and its democratic advocates jailed. Surely the overwhelming majority of nations in the world know this policy for what it is -- a policy for avoiding war.
But the world is playing the dangerous game of appeasement. It is dangerous because we saw the fruits of this approach in Germany 50 years ago. Appeasement only gives tyrants power, and more power makes tyrants dizzy, and they are apt to do provocative things to exercise their new-found strength. Only by calling a spade a spade and declaring out loud what the world is doing -- mollifying a communist dictatorship for fear it will make war -- can we gradually change the world's attitude toward that policy to one of repugnance.
The "one China" policy is nothing more than a pretense, and by honoring it the world remains in denial about the communists' intentions.
Lee Long-hwa
United States
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS