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
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