Bush's shift is all politics
I am disappointed with the US' accusation that President Chen Shui-bian (
While I supported former US vice president Al Gore's election bid in November 2000, I was heartened after President George W. Bush seemed cordial and warm in his approach toward Taiwan, especially in the first two years after assuming office.
However, Bush's administration seems to have shifted its approach in recent months.
Isn't it crystal clear that Chen's referendum is solely to let the Taiwanese people determine if China's missiles seem threatening?
How can anyone in his or her right mind perceive that as a step toward altering the status quo?
The Bush administration should instead warn the Chinese against any threat toward the nation, whether verbal, virtual or simulated.
As an advocate of democracy and freedom, it is ironic that the US has downplayed the significance and importance of Chen's planned referendum. But in reality, are the recent actions of the Bush administration a true reflection of its beliefs and ideologies?
I doubt it. Bush is facing an election in 10 months' time. The economic gloom and high rate of unemployment in the US, as well as mass opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, might help his Democratic rival win more votes.
While Bush can do little to salvage the political setbacks he has suffered as a result of the wars, he is aware that he could do much more to lift the US economy and reduce the unemployment rate.
One approach is to maintain positive trade ties with China.
Any retaliatory trade moves from China would only be detrimental to improving the US economy, which in turn would help the Democratic candidate.
As such, the Bush administration is conveniently muting, for the time being, its staunch belief in democracy and freedom to serve its own political objectives.
Indeed, from Bush's viewpoint, now is certainly not the time to antagonize the Chinese Communists.
Perhaps Taiwanese voters should take the warnings from the US and China with a grain of salt.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has said, "Taiwan's democratic development depends on the public will" ("Lee takes aim at pan-blue ticket," Jan. 4, page 2). I could not agree more.
It is indeed the right of the Taiwanese to chart their own political, economic and social destiny.
The presidential election on March 20 offers the voters the opportunity to do so.
They should vote for the candidates whose character and conduct have been exemplary, and not for the those who conveniently shift their beliefs to win votes.
Most importantly, voters must not base their choice on actions by China or the US, but on what has occurred in Taiwan over the past few years. On this note, I would personally agree with Lee that "Only with A-bian can an administration be established that takes Taiwan as its starting point. This is the direction in which Taiwan should head."
My own observation is that the US administration shares this thinking.
However, for the sake of Bush's political career, the US administration has little choice but to adhere to the wishes of China.
Nonetheless, the Chinese government has failed to comprehend that it is Taiwanese people who will decide on their future, and no amount of pressure or threats from any external party can affect their decision.
Prove me right, Taiwanese voters.
Jason Lee Boon Hong
Singapore
SARS research is safe
I wish to address the suggestion by Stuart Saunders (Letters, Jan. 1) that SARS researchers be sequestered in a dedicated facility in Taiwan. This suggestion is unrealistic and inappropriate in many ways.
First, I do not believe any town or county would welcome such a facility. Indeed, it has proven difficult for people to even accept the construction of appropriate laboratories for such research, let alone a whole complex.
Such a center would cost an enormous amount of money that the Taiwanese government would not be willing to provide. Scientific and medical research is a costly business.
But in addition to these political and economic arguments, building the center is simply not necessary.
Laboratories exist around the world where researchers have been working on viruses much more dangerous than SARS for many years, with only a few reports of incidents occurring.
I do not recall any incident that has led to a major outbreak of disease.
SARS is not a major killer, as it has been presented to us in the media. Yes, the mortality rate is more elevated than the common flu, but this is probably the result of our ignorance about how to care for patients and the lack of clear guidelines issued by health authorities at the beginning of the outbreak.
The scientific community is much more concerned by the emergence of a new flu virus like that in 1918, which affected millions and killed hundreds of thousands.
The emergence of new infectious diseases is unpredictable, and we need to be able to study and understand each and every one of them to be able to fight them individually.
Yet SARS research cannot be brushed aside.
Doing so would not be in the nation's interests, even if only for economic reasons.
If other countries develop treatments and vaccines, the cost for the department of health to acquire them would be prohibitive.
If the Taiwanese public is concerned about safety in laboratories because of the recent incident in Taipei, what they should demand is that an occupational safety department be established to control the safety of laboratories and the training programs of researchers and students.
Reasonable sanctions, such as temporary exclusions and fines, should also be considered for those who break the rules.
This system would require the creation of safety officers within universities and research institutes. Such systems are already in place in several countries.
Michael Theron
Tainan
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