Frank Chiang (江永芳) of the Taiwan Public Policy Council has argued that Taiwan is not a state, since "there is no government constituting the government of the state of Taiwan" ("Sadly, Taiwan is still not a state" March 12, page 8). In so doing, his zeal for Taiwan's Independence ends up giving away the farm, intellectually speaking.
His comparison of the people of Taiwan to the Palestinians under Israeli occupation is insulting to the former. Taiwan truly has a de facto independence; and there is no further proof of it than Beijing's practical caution despite its stormy rhetoric. What this means is that if something walks, quacks, looks like, and acts like a duck, it's a duck; and if Taiwan looks, acts, and talks like a state, it's a state.
As a professor of law, Chiang should know as well that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Beijing does not possess Taiwan; but after two elections after which pan-blue generals stay at their posts under a pan-green president, it sure looks as if the people of Taiwan are exercising such possession.
Taiwan is as much the designation of a state as Albion (Britain), the Emerald Isle (Ireland), or any of a number of informal names used for various nation?states. The fact that the official name for Taiwan and associated islands is at present the Republic of China is moot, as is the precise legal interpretation of the documents signed at the end of World War II.
The fact of the matter is that whether Taiwan calls itself Taiwan, Republic of China, Da Liuqiu (大琉球), or even Bob, it is in fact a state that itself determines the admission or exclusion of nationals of any other state that might conceivably claim its territory. Or, conversely, treat it with the respect it deserves. It coins its own money, it collects taxes, and exercises an effective jurisdiction over its territory -- which Beijing does not.
The comparison of the Taiwanese to the Palestinians is insulting because the latter are under military occupation because Israel, the occupying power, won a defensive war against a coalition of states determined to destroy it and used the West Bank of the Jordan and Gaza as bases from which to attack.
In Taiwan's case, the only military force evident in Taiwan is one that is manned and officered by people who, for the most part, regard Taiwan and its associated islands as their home and, on return to civilian life, plan to contribute their energies to its peaceful development.
Those serving in Taiwan's military who might conceivably regard their homes as various provinces in China would delay return to such homes until such time as there is a permanent peace advantageous to Taiwan; that is, either Taiwan's de jure independence is recognized or China reunifies under a government that looks more like President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) Taiwan than like China under Mao Zedong (毛澤東).
Further, in the event of an attack by Beijing the civilian population of Taiwan would support the defensive efforts of its brothers, sons, nephews, and friends now manning the military bases in Taiwan. In this, the people of Taiwan seem to think and act like people who already have their own country -- indeed, their will to keep it seems strong. So Chiang's article also insults those now prepared to defend Taiwan with their lives.
Those who advocate the international recognition of Taiwan's de facto and de jure separate international status do themselves a great disservice by remaining stuck in a post-World War II decolonization or national liberation mode of thinking. Taiwan has a history very different from other countries and need not be ashamed of it. Rather, Taiwan, regardless of what it chooses to call itself should feel no need to deny any section of its history.
Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders are by no means diminished when they call their languages "English" and acknowledge that they are culturally and in part ethnically akin to Great Britain.
The Taiwan of the near future -- which hopefully will enjoy international recognition and trade ambassadors with Beijing -- will lose nothing at all by seeing itself as heir to the Chinese culture and the Republic of China established in 1911 by Sun Yat-sen (孫中山); unless it is extreme nationalism's penchant for historical dishonesty.
Indeed, the people of Taiwan should see their history as offering an opportunity for a new way of looking at things rather than as a burden.
Chiang has no need to shortchange a land which he evidently loves.
Peter Herz
US
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, 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