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
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