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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry