On our editorial viewpoint
Thomas Friedman suggests there are "only three things we can do" to fight "World War III" against "religious totalitarians" ("Terrorists take advantage of an open society," Jan. 13, page 9). These are, apparently, to capture more terrorists before they act, learn to live with heightened risk, and help Islamic societies deter or capture more terrorists.
Similarly, in September, you published an analysis by American Institute in Taiwan director Douglas Paal ("Commemorating the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001," Sept. 14, 2003, page 9), which failed to elevate itself above this: "Since we are all potential victims of the ideology of hatred, and because terrorists believe all lives are expendable in their drive for chaos, my nation and yours must continue to condemn the murder of innocents and reject the hatred that feeds this violence."
Yet only two days after the attacks on the US, the Taipei Times courageously ran an editorial ("Search for the truth, not a scapegoat," Sept. 13, 2001, page 8) urging people to try to understand the reasons behind the attack, and expressing pity "that rational people are not asking themselves why the US should be so hated."
These recent articles in your paper show just how little self-reflection has been undertaken. Friedman concludes, "We cannot change other societies and cultures on our own." This is the sort of patronizing view of the world that your editorial warned against.
Why does the Taipei Times give space to such rhetoric, even when packaged as rational argument?
Perhaps it is merely to demonstrate how little US thinking has advanced. But then, surely, we have every other newspaper already doing that for us.
Please remember what valuable resources your ink and paper are, and, whenever possible, download from the wire services the best articles and most insightful thinking, particularly in relation to this very important issue.
Mark Caltonhill
Sanhsia
It is courageous of the Taipei Times to fend off critics supporting the pan-blue camp. Those favoring the blue camp might get better satisfaction reading the United Daily News and the China Times. Reading the Taipei Times would be painful for them: The truth is a razor, and it would cut right through their rigid minds.
The Taipei Times bears a huge responsibility to provide fair media coverage to all people, not just in Taiwan but the rest of the world.
So when your editorial ("In response to our critics," Jan. 12, page 8) says it supports Taiwan's development as an independent nation and a liberal democracy, corruption-free and governed by law, I am touched.
As an overseas Taiwanese, I not only read the Taipei Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post, but also pro-unification newspapers. Readers of all these papers have the right to express disagreement with the papers' political positions, but news agencies must report facts and base their critiques on those facts.
The Taipei Times editorial indicates the paper's political stand tilts not toward the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) but toward a democratic Taiwan.
I trust the paper will continue to criticize the DPP if it performs poorly in its fight for Taiwan's independence.
So, allow me to repeat the editorial line:
If you don't want Taiwan to be an independent nation, the Taipei Times is not writing for you, and Taiwan is not your country.
Janice Lu
Atlanta, Georgia
Other referendum topics
If Taiwan is to survive as a democracy, it must go ahead with its referendum in spite of pressure. I would like to suggest additional referendum topics:
(1) Do you think the status quo can be maintained if China increases its deployment of missiles and armed forces?
(2) Do you agree that Taiwan should be allowed to join the World Health Organization so that it will receive prompt medical assistance in case of SARS and other epidemics?
(3) Do you agree that the UN should ask China to stop isolating and threatening Taiwan?
(4) Should people not born in Taiwan run for the presidency or vice presidency?
(5) Should political parties be permitted to own businesses?
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers