Mongolia never part of China
Congratulations on affirming that "Outer Mongolia" is not part of ROC territory ("It's time to face up to reality," Feb. 27, page 8). However, I see that you are still rather confused as to the correct name for "Outer Mongolia" and refer to it as the "Mongolian People's Republic."
By the Fourth Constitution adopted by the Great Hural (National Assembly) on Jan. 13, 1992, which came into force on Feb. 12, 1992, the Mongolians changed the name of their country from the Mongolian People's Republic to Mongolia. At the same time, the Communist Star was dropped from the national flag and the state emblem.
The Khalkh Mongols were integrated into the Qing Empire as feudal dependents of the emperor. Once there was no longer an emperor, they declared independence during a committee meeting held on Dec. 1, 1911. On Dec. 16, the Jebtsundamba Khutuktu was named king.
In 1913, Russian and Chinese interference reduced this independence to autonomy within the ROC. The Mongolians again declared independence on June 11, 1921. In 1924, the Jebtsundamba died and Mongolia became a people's republic on Nov. 26 that year.
Mongolia was never a part of China. The Khalkh Mongols, defeated in battle in 1688, asked emperor Kangxi for land and protection and so began a feudal relationship with the emperor, but not with China as such. Once there was no emperor in China, the Mongols were freed from their obligation.
Attempts after 1911 to enforce ROC authority on them were all carried out against the wishes of the Mongols and with no legitimacy in international law. It is also disrespectful to Mongolia to refer to it as "Outer" Mongolia, as this name only has relevance from a Chinese perspective.
Edmund Ryden
Hsinchuang
Ignoring political reality
In a recent article ("Bush visit highlights relationship problems," Feb. 26, page 8), Wu Yu-shan, a professor of political science of National Taiwan University, described the complicated diplomatic dealings between the US, China and Taiwan by taking historical snapshots.
Wu's comments emphasize unequivocally the state of mind of the Chinese leadership at each historical event but deliberately overlook the equally important political reality concerned with the other parties involved.
Overall, Wu offers ambiguous views on cross-strait relations, which he subtly depicts as a competition between Taiwan and China. He implies that China has given Taiwan many golden opportunities in the past that Taiwan has missed.
I am utterly disappointed that Wu did not comment on China's precondition for talks of accepting the "one China" principle or its alternative, "one country, two systems," which Taiwan has repeatedly and correctly rejected.
Ching H. Li
Jersey City, New Jersey
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry