Union torn apart For such a short letter ("Union has benefits," May 3) to contain so many misconceptions, and flaws of reasoning and senseless statements must have taken great effort, even if it were an attempt at parody. At first I wondered, "Has the man only been in Taiwan for six weeks reading election rhetoric and that's all he knows of Taiwan's history?" Then, "What history books does he read? Yu Keli's?" And finally, does Bassett know that 30 million Chinese died under the governmental system he advocates -- under Mao Zedong (毛澤東) alone? That's more than the Japanese killed during World War II. Does Bassett consider that the American Civil War and all secessions in history are equal to Taiwan's situation and are solved by the simple statement, "The Union?" The people of Taiwan have found that they want democracy so they can choose whether they want to be united with anyone. And I agree with the sentiment: "Power to the People!" Jerome F. Keating
Taipei What's in a name? Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) idea about a KMT name change is absolutely correct. It is the key to saving the KMT from further fiascos. One may argue that a name change alone does not necessarily change its inherent character. However, let's focus on what is implied by having the name changed. For 50, the KMT has controlled the entire state mechanism to exploit people and society for the sake of "returning to the mainland." Comparatively, The ideological commitment of the DPP was rooted in a localized identity, and the desire for having a democratic society in Taiwan. Lee's point is absolute correct for reforming the party. The KMT needs to abandon the past, to forsake its link with China to establish its localized identity. The KMT needs to learn from modern society. The newly named KMT will play a significant role in watching over the DPP. Otherwise, the KMT will be a historical term, Taiwan will return to a one-party system and the DPP will then be the one party. Joshua K. Tin
DPP East America Chapter
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath