I must disagree with the conclusions made in your article about the airport scuffles ("Analysts say scuffles show Taiwan's weaknesses," April 27, page 3). The analyst quoted in the story obviously takes a single point of view and doesn't take his own advice of trying to understand the point of view of others.
Those people who went to the airport and scuffled with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (
This is not an irrational statement made with the purpose of encouraging such behavior, it is only a recognition that there are many people in Taiwan that are willing to put their own lives on the line for the cause of independence.
Lien should have been more rational and understanding of these forces in Taiwanese society before he agreed to this trip. He should expect more of the same everywhere he goes, because in the eyes of many Taiwanese he is a traitor, and under the law traitors deserve hefty prison sentences or more.
There is no democracy on earth which has a completely civil and peaceful coexistence of opposition parties. To say that Taiwan's democracy is not mature because there are passionate opposing beliefs is completely wrong.
To say that Taiwan's democracy is mature because there are passionate opposing beliefs and that neither side has the power to obliterate the other is accurate. If democracy was a pretty, organized and quiet affair, then the communists in China would already have adopted it. It is the appearance of social discord and anarchy that can be promoted in the exact same way that your article has done that serves as the PRC's justification for not accepting democracy.
Gregory Lloyd
Maryland
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS