Dangerous optimism
I appreciate your newspaper and especially the range and quality of opinions presented on your editorial page. But I feel the recent Liberty Times editorial, "Taiwan is sovereign but abnormal" (Nov. 21, page 8), makes some dangerous errors, ones which are not uncommonly heard in Taiwan.
Although the editorial is clearly set forth, it embodies three types of errors. The first is to present erroneous conclusions based on correct facts without distinguishing between the facts and the conclusions; the second is not to distinguish between de jure, de facto, and consensual independence and the third is to believe that "if I say it is so, then it must be so."
When Taiwan was relinquished by Japan at the end of World War II, the author correctly notes that the Japanese did not specify by whom it was to be governed. However, it is the author's assumption that this left the definition of Taiwan in limbo, and it seems to me highly unlikely that this was what any of the parties involved considered to be the case.
The most logical assumption would have been that Taiwan should have been returned to the entity which had governed it before the Japanese had controlled it -- even though the national identity of that state was currently in question. Since China had ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895 by a treaty which many still feel to this day was unjust, the country to whom it was intended must have been China, regardless if that meant the Republic of China (ROC) or the People's Republic of China could not be determined at the time.
For occupied territories to be granted independence after their colonizers have been defeated is highly unusual, and as far as I am aware, was not the case with other territories at the end of the World War II.
At this point Taiwan is certainly acting as an independent and sovereign state, but the "abnormality" of this situation is that its de jure status is unresolved and there is no international consensus on its future course. The article states that Taiwan "has all the requirements of statehood," but it does not consider the latter two aspects of independence, without which de facto independence is likely to be only a temporary condition.
Finally, the article states that Taiwan should take on its own name, Constitution and UN membership. This may be a wonderful ideal, but it seems to ignore the political realities of the situation. Although Taiwan has been moving in the direction of self-determination for the past 50 years, China's views on the situation have not changed.
It is not unknown for a territory or a country to peacefully declare its independence, but by far the most common consequence is armed conflict -- as we have seen for many years. Chechnya is a good example.
I certainly do not mean to say that Taiwan should "hand the keys to the city gate" to China, and I have confidence that Taiwan's leaders are not lacking in diplomatic skills (despite recent remarks by the foreign minister). But I am concerned with what seems to be an epidemic of unrealistic optimism, as indicated by the article in question. This is an optimism which is not only unrealistic, but dangerous.
We might wish that the world respected and supported self-determination and individual liberties of sovereign states, but it appears the world does not work this way, as shown in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places too numerous to mention. Optimism is always necessary, but it must be supported by a more realistic view of the situation.
Thomas Baker
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Fight censorship
Maybe Taiwan should bring law suits against censorship in those countries constitutionally protecting free speech ("China forces APEC to scrap Taiwan ad," Nov. 18, page 1).
The ROC flag was forcefully removed first in Athens, then the UN, even in Taipei and now in Chile. Is the whole world becoming China's big censoring territory?
Instead of condemning China's human rights abuses, free speech included, the whole world is encouraging China to extend its evil power into their free societies.
Lawsuits filed in countries where censorship takes place, even if not successful, would force a government to examine itself -- not to mention their commitment to the people.
Of course, China is afraid the truth will come out through these ads. Taiwan is a sovereign, independent country. It is through the right of free speech that the truth can be known to the world -- which is precisely why free speech must be protected. These countries have nothing to fear in free speech, and have no business becoming China's partner in censorship.
If successful, maybe China will realize human rights are still the rules and values of free societies. Maybe China will think about improving human rights at home. If not, they can hole up in their "middle kingdom" and abuse only their own citizens or extend relations with North Korea or Syria, where humans rights abuses are common.
Chen Ming-chung
Chicago, Illinois
Repressive policy? You bet!
Over the past year, and more recently in the past couple of months, articles in various newspapers are reporting the difficulties facing foreign spouses and children born to foreign spouses here in adapting to the local environment and culture. In such reports, government officials and experts tell us of the importance of these inappropriately named "new Taiwanese" learning to speak, read and write Mandarin.
One plan suggested by the government: force foreign spouses to enter compulsory Chinese language courses. Wait a minute. Doesn't this sound like some sort of violation of civil liberties and a disregard for the basic rules of democracy? Since when do you have the right in a democratic country to force anyone -- with the exception of children -- to attend school? Could the government force any "not new" Taiwanese citizen to attend Chinese language schools? No. And I am sure that, like in developed countries, some people in Taiwan got bad grades in school in their mother tongue class, and could do with attending school again. Yet we do not see the government sending them back to school.
Basic rule of democracy: You have the right to make your own decisions. Foreign spouses of Taiwanese should have the right not to attend Chinese language courses, even if these are truly beneficial to them. These courses can be a plus to foreigners, but they must remain optional. Making such courses compulsory is to treat the "new Taiwanese" as second-class citizens, and doesn't grant them equal rights with regard to freedom.
Last but not least, I do recall hearing last year that the ROC does not actually have an official language endorsed by the Constitution. So what is the legal basis to make it compulsory to learn Chinese? How about Taiwanese? Or Hakka? In a mixed nationality marriage, if the children ought to be taught Chinese, shouldn't this be the responsibility of the Taiwanese parent?
Michel Theron
Tainan
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