US President George W. Bush handed a big present to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
It is understandable that the US needs to maintain close, cooperative relations with China on the issues of North Korea, terrorism and bilateral trade.
Bush might have misunderstood the nature of Taiwan's defensive referendum. Or he might have been trying to be courteous to his guest. But his remarks against Taiwan were a serious mistake.
First, referendums are merely a deepening of Taiwan's democracy and civil rights and are compatible with the values of democratic societies the world over, including the US. Second, the proposed referendum, which will oppose China's missile threat and its threats to use force against Taiwan, does not involve any change to the status quo.
There have been suggestions in Taiwan that the country's first-ever referendum should be on the sovereignty issue, but the government did not accept this idea.
Taiwan is facing criticism even though it is not suggesting a change to the status quo. This is unfair.
"No use of force by China, no independence for Taiwan" has always been the US government's policy toward the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. The cross-strait situation, however, is a dynamic one. China is continuing with its military buildup and missile deployments against Taiwan. The situation has already been tipped out of balance.
A defensive referendum opposing the Chinese missile threat merely expresses a wish on the part of the Taiwanese people and reminds the world of China's military threat. The only change in the status quo that this referendum asks for is that China end its military threat.
It is as if Taiwan is being robbed by a knife-wielding thug and yet the police scold the nation for screaming for help. This is absurd.
Interaction between the two sides of the Strait ended because China refused to have any contact with President Chen Shui-bian (
A defensive referendum is a concrete action aimed at telling the Chinese government that military threats are a dead end, and that the people of Taiwan will not accept peace at gunpoint. Only when China faces up to the existence of Taiwan's government can the two sides talk. Taiwan cannot tango alone.
People should have the freedom to choose their destinies. This is a universal value of democratic societies. The international community condemned Indonesia for using force to suppress East Timor's pursuit of independence. The world has also voiced support for Aung San Suu Kyi, back under house arrest for her pursuit of freedom for her compatriots. The Dalai Lama also receives sympathy from around the world for his pursuit of religious freedoms for Tibet and for opposing China's oppression.
In contrast, Taiwan is being restrained from even expressing its desire to be free from missile threats.
The history of the US would have been very different if the French government had tried to appease Britain and refused to side with freedom and justice 200 years ago, when the American people were resisting British rule and seeking independence.
If Bush's remarks were merely meant to please his guest, then he should return to the proper track of freedom and democracy. If the US is trying to play a two-pronged strategy, then it should note that the balance has tipped. The situation could deteriorate beyond repair if the US makes no redress quickly.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US