I have something to say about the "stop saying who loves Taiwan more" issue. I used to be light "blue" but I cannot recall when the "color" in me started changing. Maybe it's because I was irritated by the continuous threat from China, and giving my vote to President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) at least made me feel that I was my own boss, because A-bian seems to have more guts than other politicians on such matters.
I like the way the Democratic Progressive Party dares to say that we want "independence" and that we like the name "Taiwan" better than "Republic of China." The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) may have a more conservative approach on the national title, but what is wrong with being honest about your feelings? I voice my opinions about independence to show my love for Taiwan. What's wrong with saying "Taiwan, I love you"?
I believe the KMT loves Taiwan, too. We need not doubt the KMT's contribution to Taiwan's economy and democracy. It's not fair to doubt the KMT's love for Taiwan just because it has been much more conservative in its political maneuvering on the identity issue. The KMT sees the economy as the key to holding power and as a necessary area in which Taiwan must move forward. How can one not believe that a wealthier country will become more powerful?
It is not that the KMT loves Taiwan less when it defies the referendum -- it's just that the KMT loves Taiwan differently.
But the question I am asking the KMT and the People First Party is this: Why don't we
see your love anymore? I hear
the word "love" and I see you "kiss" the ground of Taiwan
but I do not feel it. Defying the
referendum does not make
me feel your love for Taiwan's freedom. Bribing young men by promising to end compulsory military service does not make me feel your love. Nor does telling the world that the president cheated in the election when you have no evidence to prove it.
You have many arguments to say how evil our "love" is. But, sorry to say, the only question I am left with is: How come you hate my love so much?
I need to know how you love Taiwan and where you would lead the country. Come on, tell me and tell me again that you love Taiwan too.
Susan Su
United States
The time is right
I don't agree with Ross Terrill's assessment ("US expert suggests slower Constitution timetable," April 20, Page 3). Would he have Taiwan wait until the "time is right?" You know and I know that the time to write a new constitution according to the Chinese Communist Party will never be right. There will never be a better time to write a new constitution than when it's needed. Taiwan must go bravely -- even if haltingly -- where no Taiwanese has ever gone before, and it must go despite every Chinese Communist, China expert and closet-loving fear-monger telling it "no." There will be no advantage to waiting. The time is right.
Bode Bliss
Cleveland, Ohio
Whose ethnic divide?
The pan-blues claim that President Chen victory relied in part on creating an ethnic divide. I think their logic goes like this: if everyone votes for the KMT, then Taiwan is in a state of ethnic harmony.
But if people vote for the pan-green camp, then it is ethnically divided.
Ethnic harmony is not determined by how people cast their votes on a particular election day, but rather by how people treat each other
in their daily lives. If pan-blue camp leaders continue to create unrest and, to some extent, hatred in society, then it is they who are making things worse.
Susan Su
Changhua
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath