A change in thinking
When the US went to war in Iraq, they said it was over what weapons of mass destruction could do to us if they fell into the wrong hands.
When they found none, they said we sacrificed our young people for democracy.
When they discovered that democracy in Iraq does not come cheap, they said we were there for human rights. But by then, no one was interested any more.
Taiwan has no weapons of mass destruction, but it is enjoying a democratic way of life.
The freedom of speech it enjoys even allows some to openly threaten the head of state without fearing punishment.
But the political blockade from the international community will not promote democracy or human rights in Taiwan, nor will it reduce the tension in the region either.
It does, however, lead to cynicism over the sacrifices made in Iraq.
China threatens Taiwan with missiles and political
isolation if the latter seeks independence, statehood or offers aid to tsunami victims. China is now also proposing an anti-secession law to "legitimize" action against Taiwan. Who will be next on China's list?
The US State Department went as far as supporting China's objections to a name-change for Taiwan's representatives offices as a threat to the "status quo." If this is changing the status quo, why did the US name its office "American Institute in Taiwan" in 1979? There is nothing uglier to witness than the US and China using the name "Taiwan" all these years, then opposing its use by the Taiwanese people.
Previous and current policies adopted by the US and the international community toward Taiwan have not defused tension in the region because the source of that tension is China. It is time for all of us to change the way we think about this matter.
Rao Kok-sian
Boston, Massachusetts
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