Some modest proposals
Recently, I saw several articles published in the editorial section of the Taipei Times regarding how Taiwan is being harassed by China in the international theater.
These harassments consist of everything from the name of Taiwan, China's crackdown on "pro-green" Taiwanese business people and entertainers ("Opening to the Enemy," June 30, page 8) and the repeated campaign against Taiwan's membership in UN ("Long view needed in economic diplomacy," Aug. 28, page 8).
On all of the above issues, may I present my view, to see if the Taiwan government can take quick action in developing a new strategy and implementing it as early as possible for the benefit of the Taiwanese people and their future freedom and happiness.
Perhaps, you might like to forward this letter to President Chen Shui-bian (
Taiwan's name: Recently, we were watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics and saw the Taiwan called "Chinese Taipei." One of the US viewers asked, "Where is the country `Chinese Taipei? Is it in China?'"
From time to time, we also read articles in newspapers and magazines and are very confused about the distinction between the Taiwan-owned China Airlines, China Petroleum, China Steel, China Shipbuilding, and China-owned entities with similar names.
One American even walked into a travel agency asking for a China Airlines flight to Beijing!
Since early years of the Cold War in the 50s and 60s, there have been postal problems between China and Taiwan. Mail gets returned to the sender if he or she uses the name "Republic of China," because such mail is often sent to China instead of Taiwan.
Therefore, we have always used the name "Taiwan" or "Formosa" when the addressee is in Taiwan and tried not to use the word China, to be sure that the mail reaches to the Taiwan addressee.
Chen spoke on behalf of Taiwan's UN bid during his recent interview with members of the UN Correspondents Association.
He said that Taiwan's unfair exclusion from the world body was tantamount to being an "international vagabond" and thus the country was the "victim of political apartheid."
Despite Chen's comments, Taiwan was again rejected this year in its annual bid for UN membership.
The key issue is China's "one China" card. In fact, the "one China" view was inherited from the civil war between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party.
Based on the above facts, Taiwan should not stubbornly try to keep the name "Republic of China" or "ROC" to challenge China for its seat in the UN. Indeed, Taiwan now has not tried to revise the decision of UN, made more than 30 years ago, to have the PRC take Taiwan's seat to represent China.
(The ROC, on behalf of Taiwan, abandoned its UN membership at that time).
As long as Taiwan used the word "China" as part of the country's name, the UN would not and could not accept Taiwan's proposal.
Even so, Chen mentioned the examples of North and South Korea and West and East Germany. But Taiwan and China are not currently on an equal footing in the same way that the Koreas and Germanys are. Therefore, it would be wise for Taiwan to seek a new strategy.
One of the strategies that should be considered and developed is to not bother too much about acquiring UN membership, but instead concentrate the nation's efforts on maintaining a neutral position -- similar to what Switzerland did some years ago.
In doing so, Taiwan should immediately delete the name "ROC" and any other name including the word "China." As Chen said, Taiwan is Taiwan. The name Taiwan or Formosa has been recognized by the international community for centuries.
By settling on the name Taiwan, and working to maintain the country's neutrality, we believe that the UN in time will officially invite Taiwan to join the body as a member, instead of Taiwan lobbying for such membership.
Taiwan's investment in China: In accordance with your editorial entitled "Opening to the enemy" (June 30, page 8), it seems Taiwanese businesspeople should start searching for other locations for their enterprises outside of China.
Why in the world should Taiwan become stuck in China, when China has not appreciated Taiwan's economic contribution in these past years?
In order to relocate Taiwanese enterprises, the government should develop a national strategy, giving financial support to companies searching for good investment destinations in countries who are much friendlier to Taiwan.
Taiwanese businesspeople should also look for places with less political risk in order to receive the government's support.
The government should develop a plan similar to the Japanese government's plan, by supporting enterprises which pursue global markets and competition.
Taiwan, with its well-known high-tech businesses, should find no difficulty achieving world-class status and finding friendlier destinations for investment.
On economic diplomacy: an article published in the Taipei Times on Aug. 28 titled "Long view needed in economic diplomacy" is very perceptive.
The basic mistake made by the government in the past in aid programs to developing countries has been to give gifts instead of loans, like Japan.
The government should change this policy and use the method of the Japanese government on foreign aid programs as soon as possible.
In order to be successful, the government should work closely with Taiwan's private enterprises and use these enterprises as a vehicle to offer financial assistance to needy countries.
By doing so, it would not only enhance Taiwan's international position in making friends both politically and economically, but would also help Taiwan's enterprises enter international competition successfully and protectively.
To achieve the above proposed scenario, the first thing to do is to unite the pan-blue and pan-green camps and work together at this difficult time for the benefit of Taiwan's future prosperity and happiness, and not for personal gain.
After all, Taiwan is Taiwan, as Chen said. Taiwan should form a united front when facing harassment from an outside enemy who aims to harm the country's social welfare, freedom and happiness.
Yoshiko Tio
Houston, Texas
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