Today, Russia mourns the victims of the inhuman terrorist attack in Beslan. It is a terrible tragedy and emotional blow to every Russian citizen, and has evoked a wave of sympathy from around the world (which in this case, regrettably, did not include Taiwan). Of course, what is a tragedy to Russia is a joy to terrorists and their sympathizers. For the author of your editorial ("Address root causes of terrorism," Sept. 5, page 8) about this episode, as he or she calls the death of 335 people, nearly half of them children, is a good occasion to throw some mud at Russia, as well as to arrogantly judge it and provide unsolicited advice.
This article creates the impression that, although the terrorists are wrong, the Russian government should ultimately be held responsible for the tragedy, or at least share some responsibility with the terrorists. I wonder if the author uses the same logic to describe other terrorist attacks, like on Sept. 11, 2001, or if Russia is a special case conveniently providing the opportunity for an exercise in hypocrisy and double standards.
There is indeed no good solution to a situation in which 1,500 people, including many children, are taken hostage by brutal terrorists, who can not be called human, who do not even have any demands and who just want to provoke bloodshed. And to those who watched live coverage it should be absolutely clear who opened fire and why the siege began. I am unaware of any group "demanding an explanation from the Russian government," as the editorial claims. Leaders and citizens of many countries, as well as the UN, EU, NATO and other organizations, have expressed their sympathy, as well as their condemnation of terrorism.
So, some people wonder why Russia cannot just leave Chechnya alone. Well, we have tried that already. Chechnya was de facto independent from Russia from 1996 to 1999. This resulted in Chechnya becoming a bandit republic of the dark medieval kind. Just one example: at the time, there were slave markets openly operating in Grozny and other cities. Curiously, at that time we did not hear reprimands addressed to Chechen rulers from those human rights crusaders who are now accusing Russia with gusto. They were busy with some other problems, like Kosovo, saving their ammunition for bigger targets than some slave masters in Chechnya.
Finally, in 1999, Chechen bandits tried to invade the bordering republic of Dagestan to establish their caliphate. They blew up several apartment houses in Moscow and other Russian cities, killing hundreds of innocent people. That finally triggered the Russian response.
Russia is trying to restore normal life in the republic, to restore the rule of law, democracy and human rights. It is a difficult process, interrupted by frequent terrorist attacks. If Russia leaves the northern Caucasus, this region will become a kingdom of terror that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban seem like Switzerland. So, our war with terrorism should mobilize help and support from the international community. That is generally what is happening.
Even if Russia wants to start negotiation with so-called "rebels," who should we talk to? Famous terrorist and murderer Shamil Basayev? "President" Aslan Maskhadov, under whose rule Chechnya became the hotbed for international terrorism and religious extremism and who controls nothing and decides nothing?
Terrorists want to break the spirit of my nation and make it surrender. Those who read history textbooks know that Russia does not surrender.
George Zinoviev
Deputy representative,
Russian Representative Office, Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with