To help relieve tsunami-devastated South Asian countries, countries around the world have one after another increased the amount of money they have pledged in aid. The US has now committed US$350 million, up from the US$15 million it originally pledged. Japan also raised its aid from US$30 million to US$500 million, making it the top donor country.
Taiwan didn't lag behind, and upped its pledge from US$5 million to US$50 million. I am sure that the people of Taiwan are delighted with and support the government's decision. In fact, many local social groups and schools have already taken the initiative to appeal for private donations for tsunami relief.
When the government decided to increase disaster-relief funding, the reasons were: the hope that Taiwan could be included in the list of top 10 donor nations, to increase Taiwan's visibility in the international community, and at the same time increase other countries' willingness to support Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization (WHO).
Too much emphasis on political motivation of donations at the expense of stating the importance of compassion and the severity of disaster may make people (especially in recipient countries) consider the donations conditional on political benefits.
As a result, the compassion felt by 23 million Taiwanese people may be tainted with hypocrisy.
Whether it is "the Republic of China (ROC)," "ROC, Taiwan," "Taiwan, ROC," "China Taipei," " Chinese Taipei," "Taiwan," or "the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu," our country is an "abnormal" and "unique" nation that has been degraded, discriminated against and ignored.
As a result, no wonder Taiwan must defend itself in a diplomatic setting by constantly considering mutual-benefit exchanges and feedback from the international community to seek recognition or other political advantage.
But is this emphasis on political incentives and purposes in public announcements or in international media when extending political, economic or emergency aid to others beneficial? This is a question that our government should consider.
A few years ago when the government promoted the second phase of the "go south" policy (
Once, when Taiwan contributed funding to the second-track (or non-governmental) regional security cooperation forum, an Indonesian diplomat advised Taiwan that its insistence on linking this funding with diplomatic conditions was not the best means of attaining its ends.
Take Taiwan's 2003 SARS outbreak as an example. Excessively manipulating the situation for political gain only had a negative impact on Taiwan's participation in the WHO.
Taiwan's donations for tsunami relief spring from the highest moral motives, and demonstrate the government's diplomatic commitment to actively promote human rights and humanitarian aid. But good policies and intentions are only be undermined by politicized explanations.
Although all countries have their own foreign-policy considerations when providing international disaster relief or humanitarian aid, it is important to "do more and talk less," and especially to refrain from emphasizing supplementary conditions in public announcements.
Song Yann-huei is a research fellow and deputy director at the Institute of European and American Studies at the Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations