Although President Chen Shui-bian's (
Yesterday, Zhang Mingqing (
China actually obtained a copy of the speech via the US and rushed to announce its position prior to Chen's inauguration. China's two reactions in a week indicate it is gravely concerned with the international response to the speech.
Chen had set goals: to calm the electorate at home, to relieve the anxious US and the international community, and to deprive China of any excuse to use force against Taiwan.
Some people in Taiwan criticized Chen for con-ceding too much regarding the cross-strait relationship in his speech, as he promised that changes to the Constitution would not touch on issues of the country's national flag, title or sovereignty. He also approached the topic of constitutional reform in terms of "re-engineering" rather than as writing a new Constitution. Despite this complaint, the speech was well-received by the public.
Chen's inauguration speech was better received by the international community. It was acclaimed as "responsible and constructive" by the US State Department and viewed positively by other governments. Compared with the international response to Chen's speech, Beijing's comment appears jarring. Its failure to influence international opinion forced it to make another statement.
Yet as the US said on May 17, China's military threat is unnecessary. What Zhang said over the weekend was a mere reiteration of intimidation, which was neither positive nor constructive for cross-strait dialogue. China's decision to make the second statement was simply another mistake.
As Taiwan offers the olive branch of peace and China rattles its saber, the international community can easily tell which side shows flexibility and aspirations for peace, and which side is the troublemaker and source of cross-strait tension. Although power and influence define a country's role in the global arena, the capacity to differentiate right and wrong cannot be ignored. It is easy to tell who is right and who is wrong in the cross-strait relationship from the statements of all sides.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
On Sunday, elite free solo climber Alex Honnold — famous worldwide for scaling sheer rock faces without ropes — climbed Taipei 101, once the world’s tallest building and still the most recognizable symbol of Taiwan’s modern identity. Widespread media coverage not only promoted Taiwan, but also saw the Republic of China (ROC) flag fluttering beside the building, breaking through China’s political constraints on Taiwan. That visual impact did not happen by accident. Credit belongs to Taipei 101 chairwoman Janet Chia (賈永婕), who reportedly took the extra step of replacing surrounding flags with the ROC flag ahead of the climb. Just
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS