What a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!
Wang Weiming ("Laughable and pathetic," April 30, page 8) charges that the pan-greens are making dangerous accusations, while failing to mention that since March 20 the pan-blues have indulged in much contemptible character assassination as well as repeated attempts to create Haiti-style civil unrest ("revolution," they call it).
The beauty of democracy is that citizens are free to question their leaders. However, in light of the post-election uproar, have we not seen affable pan-green politicians and supporters humbly accept a ballot recount and further in-vestigations into the attempted assassinations?
Where can you find another world leader who, after an attempt on his life, is assumed guilty and forced by his nation to "please explain why you were shot?"
Yet President Chen Shui-bian (
Can anyone deny that Chen's holding out of the olive branch has availed him little thus far? The pan-blues' bitterness at their defeat has marred their respect for the judicial system and raised questions about their judgment and morality. Are the rest of us also free to question the pan-blues' intentions and acerbic tone?
While there is always room for improvement, Chen included, let us look at both sides of the argument with greater objectivity. Upholding democratic principles means that however free we may be to question our leaders, we must also respect the courts' ability to honor our legal codes with due process. Failing this, we fail democracy.
Insinuating that leaders can bypass the laws and judicial processes is surely not conducive to the spirit of democracy. The pan-blues would do better to point their accusing fingers at those who harbor such dangerous and illegal notions.
Currently I see no indications of political turmoil or democracy going "backward," as some former tyrants continue to claim.
Respected international commentators and global leaders alike have lauded Taiwan's democracy as true and functioning, particularly in light of the capable handling of the pan-blues' post-March 20 enmity.
My fellow Taiwanese would certainly do better for our young democracy by placing more faith in our nation and its laws.
Jennifer Chen
Australia
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS