Paal was misrepresented
On July 5 and July 7, the Taipei Times published opinion pieces that incorrectly and inexplicably repeated an allegation that American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Douglas Paal opposes the holding of referendums in Taiwan.
Paal has made clear in a widely published interview that he has not expressed this view. President Chen Shui-bian (
These statements are on the record and should be well known to your editors.
You owe it to your readers to ensure the factual accuracy of material you publish, including articles expressing opinion.
Judith Mudd-Krijgelmans
AIT spokesperson
US no friend of democracy
I was almost cheered by the vision conjured up by your article ("Bush's vision for Iraqi freedom is firmly on track," July 7, page 9) It was a vision of jubilant and grateful Iraqis empowered "by the coalition, joining 28,000 American combat forces enforcing order and arresting criminals, and Iraqi citizens [who] feel safer leaving their homes."
But then who, I wondered, had crafted this oasis of calm in the midst of a Desert Storm? It was AIT Director Douglas Paal, whose own commitment to democracy and freedom has been well-demonstrated recently in his comments on Taiwan's right to self-determination.
Paal does not extend the same hand of freedom to Taiwan, the country where he lives and works. Ever since a few hundred people converged on Paal's office protesting against the Iraq war, the AIT has erected a large sign, reminding people in both English and Chinese that public protest is illegal. It seems a little odd to be singing about democracy and freedom whilst banning demonstrations by invoking a rule that served martial law under the KMT dictatorship.
Paal's warmth toward another odious dictatorship -- the one across the Taiwan Strait -- also runs counter to his seeming belief in the benefits of democracy. The DPP announced their intention to hold referendums on, for example, independence and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Yet Paal made no distinction between these two issues. Instead he merely repeated a version of Beijing's "three no's" policy: no self-determination, no ifs and no buts.
Iraq shares with Taiwan the dilemma that without accepting the US' conditional goodwill, it risks being blown into oblivion. Even if -- faced with no alternative -- they accept, they are hardly guaranteed sovereignty. US President George W. Bush and Paal have yet to admit it, but the US does not wish true democracy and self-determination for either nation. Instead, it prefers to allow both countries, as outposts of the new world order, to play at democracy, to feign freedom as long as, ultimately, they heed America's bidding.
Gareth Price
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