Rewriting history An unnamed Reuters correspondent has once again fallen prey to China's propaganda on Taiwan ("Sino-Japan war anniversary stirs memory of unity," Aug. 16. Page 6), describing a reference to the united front with the "Nationalist Party" as "a nod to rival Taiwan." Earlier, the reporter labeled this "a veiled reminder to Taiwan of wartime unity." Which Beijing spin doctor came up with this one? Or does Reuters do the spinning itself? A quick review of the historical facts: 1) Taiwan fought on the other side in World War II as, by the way, Dan Nystedt's excellent feature ("Fighting for the Empire," Aug 13, Page 17) expressed quite eloquently. 2) The "Nationalists" (whom we usually call the KMT) are no longer in power in Taiwan and the ideological successors to those who fought the Japanese are even further in the political wilderness. So this so-called "nod" is about 20 years too late. It is one thing for a wire correspondent to be ignorant; in fact, it happens all the time. However, it is the responsibility of the editors of the Taipei Times to correct them. All wire stories on Taiwan need to be edited thoroughly, to remove misrepresentations and misleading language ("the island," "renegade province," et al). Otherwise, the Times is not living up to its mission to present the reality of Taiwan to the world. Bo Tedards
Taipei Chen's LA stopover I object to a paragraph appearing towards the end of Lin Chieh-Yu's article ("Chen keeps a low profile on LA stop, Aug. 15, Page 1) -- "Almost all the Taiwanese who showed up at the Westin were from pro-independence organizations. No ROC flag was seen waving in the crowd." I was at the Westin with my wife, two children and my parents. Although the banners of the pro-independence groups were prominent, I don't believe most of the people there could be classified as pro-independence. Instead, I would suggest that many of them were simply there to show their support to the democratically elected president from their motherland. As far as the absence of the ROC flag, the point should be made of the deliberate attempt by the TECO, the usual source for the ROC flags, to downplay the official nature of this stopover. Antony Ho
USA WTO political in nature John Locke wrote that "civil society was to be in the control of the men of property" while "the greatest part of mankind" was to be "an object of state policy, an object of administration, rather than fully a part of the citizen body." Such explanations continue to ring true today, though more deceptively, as when John Bolton (China trying to politicize the WTO, Aug. 7, pg. 8) characterizes the WTO as "intended to be purely a trade organization divorced from political questions." This assertion rests on a very questionable definition of what constitutes politics. One definition in Collins dictionary reads politics as "the complex or aggregate of relationships of people in society, especially those relationships involving authority or power." Here are some examples of the far reaching political nature of the WTO: 1) In 1997, the US' EPA's proposed gasoline pollution standards were deemed "technical barriers." 2) Politics was the tool against compulsory licensing for affordable distribution of AIDS drugs in Thailand (nullified by WTO) and South Africa (threat of WTO action). 3) WTO action was threatened by Japan and the EU over the Massachusetts Purchasing Law, a law that penalized companies doing business with Myanmar's brutal dictatorship. Similar laws were used by many local and state governments in the fight against South Africa's Apartheid during the 1980s. The threat of WTO action was cited in the US Supreme Court rulings that struck down this law. The plaintiff, the National Foreign Trade Council, is an alliance of over 600 corporations dedicated to overturning such laws. The jurisdictions and issues dealt with are broad, highly political and consistently favor business profits over other social concerns. Criticism of the PRC's nationalist politics is not surprising in the context of the WTO's transnational corporate orientation. Sadly, Locke's clear insights "about men of property", still ring true. Mark Munsterhjelm
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
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