Union analogy misguided Reading Norman Richard Bassett's letter ("Union has benefits," May 3, page 8), I have to say to him: Thank you for your sympathy, even half-hearted, for the Taiwanese cause! However, your logic of espousing China's goal of taking over Taiwan is curious, if not ridiculous. If Adolph Hitler had used Charlemagne's "union" vision to unify Europe, would you accept that argument? Please do not use US history to teach us Taiwanese people. Learn a little bit about European history, which can help you enlarge your vision and ours, too. Relations between Taiwan and China are not those of the North and the South of the US. Taiwan has never been administered by la Chine populaire, (the People's Republic of China), which has now visibly become less "populaire" as the French would say. In a decade or so, if the Chinese communist regime collapses from its internal contradictions, will you still hold on to your union argument? Your American North is still there, but the last "celestial empire" of this world will eventually disappear. Meanwhile, Taiwan will continue to accelerate its democratization movement and to strengthen its high-tech economy! Wei-penn Chang
Professor of European Studies,
Tamkang UniversityOne can hardly make sense of Bassett's letter. He wrote, "Taiwanese independence would be secession with all its evils. Taiwan's past century has been evil enough already." Taiwan is independent. The Chinese need a visa to visit Taiwan. Where does "secession" fit in this picture? And, let's be clear, Taiwan's past century has been heroic, not evil. It's been full of optimistic quests for a better life with a huge humanistic reconciliatory touch, both to the Japanese and to the Chinese. Just look toward the Basque land, Palestine and North Ireland for less edifying examples. On the contrary, it's China's past century that has been evil: bloody civil wars one after another, brutal infighting within the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese themselves, and, now, waving killing machines at the Taiwanese. Bassett needs to learn to tell right from wrong. He also needs to take a course on logic. Sing Young
Taoyuan Basset's letter conflating the current Taiwan-China mess with the US Civil War repeats a common fallacy. In the US Civil War, the South's international status was never in question. The issue was whether it could change that status by seceding. Taiwan, however, has never been part of China; from the 17th to the 19th century, the Manchus controlled it, as they did China and other now sovereign states. At issue in Taiwan is whether its status should be resolved by annexation to China or by popular referendum, as UN treaties call for. Using the US Civil War, the proper analogy would be if the defeated Southern leaders had retreated to Cuba and continued the fight from there, forcing the island's people to speak English and study American history, while the North, basing its claim on the fact that Spain once owned parts of the US and Cuba, claimed Cuba was part of the US. Michael A. Turton
Fooyin Institute of Technology,
Kaohsiung
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