I would like to respond to your article about seeking independence for Taiwan as a country ("Activists warn against `five noes,'" May 14, page 3). There are those who are worried that President Chen Shui-bian's (
But Taiwan is already an independent country. I believe her statehood is questionable, therefore, Taiwan should seek statehood, not independence, which is what your article would like the readers to believe.
Recently, people have talked about the ROC and Taiwan being one and the same. I do not know if I agree. However, Taiwanese people have accepted the ROC, which was kicked out of China in 1945. The Taiwanese have repaired it and are trying to make it suitable to local conditions. Therefore, it is now the Taiwanese Republic of China.
The "Taiwanese ROC" is different from the "ROC in Taiwan" proposed by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and used officially by Chen's administration. "ROC in Taiwan" is wrong, because it represents the occupation of Taiwan by China, who allows the KMT to use it for this reason.
"Taiwanese ROC" puts Taiwan at the front and represents Taiwan has the ROC, not China. After all, China rejected her some 60 years ago, so the People's Republic should have no say about the ROC anymore. I would strongly suggest that the media urge A-bian's administration to use "Taiwanese Republic of China."
Rao-kok-sian
Boston
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.
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