MOFA is non-partisan
Your editorial "Nervous nellies or diplomats?" (March 1, page 8) was apparently based on a lack of thorough research of the subject. We write to express the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (MOFA) position on the matter.
The ministry has not proceeded beyond the stage of deliberation and evaluation on the question of whether to rename our representative offices, although the media have covered the issue over the past year. Your editorial stated that information was deliberately leaked to the "pro-China media" in the wake of US President George W. Bush's Asian trip. This was indeed a misunderstanding.
According to the Constitution, the president shall decide on the country's foreign policy. The ministry's role is that of the enforcer of such policy. Consequently, all foreign policy matters, including a decision to add "Issued in Taiwan" to ROC passports, are submitted to the proper higher authorities for approval. Furthermore, the ministry conducts itself in accordance with the law.
MOFA's role is to pursue the national interest and the people's well-being, not the interests of any political party. Statements accusing MOFA of being "a bastion of reunificationist conservatism" do not reflect reality.
Information and Cultural Affairs Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
228 not an `incident'
I am concerned about the title of the article "A Reflection upon the 228 Incident" (Feb 28, page 8).
According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, "incident" has the following meanings: "something dependent on or subordinate to something else of greater or principal importance;" "an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience;" or "an accompanying minor occur-rence or condition."
For the word, "massacre," on the other hand, the dictionary gives the following meanings: "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty;" "a cruel or wanton murder;" "an act of complete destruction."
In my opinion, the word "incident" in your title is ambiguous and imprecise. I strongly feel that the word "massacre" would be more appropriate and suitable to this historic event. "Massacre" would not only express the true meaning of the event to both Taiwanese and to the rest of the world, but it would also serve as a mirror to our future generations, reminding them not to repeat this agonizing history ever again.
I ask you to seriously consider my suggestion and use the word "massacre" in any articles for next year's 228 anniversary.
Leone Z. Young
Taipei
Death penalty unacceptable
In your excellent editorial on the death penalty ("The death penalty must be killed," March 4, page 8), you refer to Peter Hodgkinson as a "prominent campaigner for the abolition of the death penalty."
As one of his hosts during his recent visit, I noticed that he never liked to use the word "abolition." He always stated that he worked for the "replacement" of the death penalty. This is a point worth bearing in mind in the future as it is less likely to provoke an immediate reaction from death penalty supporters.
Secondly, while it is true that he did admit that the Ministry of Justice's plan to grant judges discretion in the use of the death penalty might be acceptable as an interim measure, his meaning was that such a measure would not be acceptable in the long run. He also said that he would never trust UK judges with such discretion as they would inevitably abuse it. In this respect he would be in total agreement with the conclusion of your editorial: The death penalty is unacceptable.
Edmund Ryden
Hsinchuang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs