Opposing Taiwanese independence is a front for opposing Taiwanese freedom of choice. The whole world knows this -- except for KMT Chairman Lien Chan and his followers, as their reaction to the "Anti-Secession" Law showed. The pan-blue camp said the law targeted Taiwanese independence supporters, and therefore refused to participate in the protest on March 26, which, like Lien's trip, confused KMT followers and the world.
Peace without dignity or freedom is what the pan-blue camp protested for at CKS International Airport. But Lien and his supporters will never speak the truth about how they intend to bring about this "peace."
If "peace" is all the KMT wants, then former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) could have secured it decades ago. But Lien is trying to say that today's Chinese Communist Party is different to before.
The world knows, however, that the only difference in the communists today is that they are richer and stronger.
The number of people who protested the trip at the airport compared with those who supported it, according to police reports, was about 3,000 to 900, roughly the same ratio of those think the trip will sell out Taiwan against those who would want "peace" at the expense of freedom and democracy.
The most objectionable thing about the airport scuffle was the presence of organized-crime gangs, like at every other pan-blue gathering, and their attacks on pan-green camp members, and Taiwanese independence supporters in particular. These thugs have not been punished, and were not even challenged by the authorities or the police on the scene. Watching these cowards gang up on the elderly and beat isolated pan-green camp supporters was sickening.
Unless Lien states clearly that he supports freedom of choice for Taiwanese people, he will go down in history as selling out Taiwan, selling out freedom, selling out democracy as well as selling out the hope of Chinese who yearn for democracy and freedom.
Chen Ming-chung
Chicago, Illinois
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS