A case of amnesia
I am perplexed by Jonathan Gardner's nescient suggestion that "we should also keep in mind the contribution that he, his wife and others made to building what eventually became the world's first Chinese democracy and a truly "first-world" free nation 107km from communist China" with regard to the so-called legacy of Soong Mayling (宋美齡), also known as Madame Chiang Kai-shek (Letters, Oct 30, page 8).
First, to suggest that Taiwan is the world's first "Chinese" democracy is utterly insulting to the 23 million Taiwanese of various ethnic backgrounds who are trying to find their own identity after centuries of foreign rule.
Second, what "contributions" did the vicious Generalissimo Chiang and his equally conniving wife make that could possibly have helped Taiwan build our vibrant democracy, but for the uniformity in their brutality that strengthened the resolve of Taiwanese to be freed from the rein of KMT despotism forever?
Not to mention that Soong was particularly adamant that Taiwan's Father of Democracy, Lee Teng-Hui (
The world's media may have suffered from a debilitating case of selective amnesia when it came to writing Soong's obituary. However, please let it be known that the generations of Taiwanese who survived despicable crimes against humanity for decades under her and her cronies have not and will never forget.
Rest in peace, Madame Chiang -- for Taiwanese can now live in peace free from the toxic tentacles of your clan and your dishonorable legacy.
Jennifer Chen
Melbourne, Australia
Jamaica and globalization
Thank you for your recent article which puts violence in Jamaica under the microscope ("Jamaica looks to its children to end the days of killing," Oct. 31, page 9). It may be helpful however to step back and look at broader economic issues underlying the situation in Jamaica.
I refer here to the award-winning documentary film Life and Debt, which takes a first-hand look at the effects of global economics upon the lives of Jamaicans. To gain loans from the IMF and Inter-American Development Bank, Jamaica has had to eliminate protection of its agricultural industries, eliminating subsidies to farmers and tariffs on imports, and opening its markets to competition from foreign producers, like the US and the EU.
Unfortunately for Jamaica, US agricultural industries have invaded Jamaican markets with dairy, poultry, meat and vegetables that are cheaper than Jamaican farmers can produce. Tourists to Jamaican beach resorts might be surprised to know that the "delicious Jamai-can food" they eat isn't Jamai-can at all, but comes off a ship from Miami (and probably isn't delicious, either).
The lives of tens of thou-sands of Jamaican farmers and their families have been shattered because of the American economic Goliath, which in its disgusting hypocrisy massively subsidizes its own agricultural industry. Compete on a fair basis? Don't be ridiculous! Allow Third World countries to protect their small farms against huge multinational corpora-tions? Don't be absurd!
Jamaican dairy farmers have to open the taps and drain sparkling fresh milk to the ground because America sells powdered milk to Jamaican supermarkets and resort hotels cheaper than Jamaican dairies can produce fresh milk. As a result many Jamaican dairies have been driven out of business. Similar stories can be told about farmers who once depended upon carrots, peanuts, onions and potatoes to make a living.
Struggling farmers are un-able to provide a decent upbringing for their sons, who in their desperation and anger turn to an underworld of drugs and violence. Coffin-making, security guards and attack dogs are all growth industries in Jamaica because of the spiraling violence which can in great measure be laid at the feet and upon the consciences of the directors and champions of lending agencies like the IMF and US-dominated global economics in general.
Sadly, similar stories can be told of other countries receiving IMF or World Bank "aid" -- a euphemism for opening Third World markets to invasion by US and EU producers.
David Cupples
Kaohsiung
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.
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