Although I greatly admire former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), I have to question his assertion that "Taiwan has been an independent nation ... since May, 1, 1991 when I announced the abolishment of the Temporary Provisions Effective during the `Period of National Mobilization for the Suppression of the Communist Rebellion.'" ("Lee urges new approach to China threat," March 27, page 2)
The Republic of China came into being claiming to be the successor to the Qing Dynasty. The claim of the People's Republic of China that the dispute between the two governments is an internal Chinese affair appears reasonable on the surface. US policy has long been directed only at being even-handed and avoiding conflict. The US and other powers looking for excuses in the face of a Chinese attack on Taiwan could all too easily note that the undefended island called itself "China," that its Constitution was written to govern China, and that the people there had never spoken in a democratic vote recording their support for independence or their opposition to unification.
Many Americans remember all too well that Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) Republic of China was the first in a long and sordid series of quasi-fascist regimes supported by the US during the Cold War. Currently in the US, what may appear to be support for Taiwan's cause comes largely from conservatives, who have long supported Chiang's Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and who have spent 50 years verbally abusing the communist People's Republic. But if an attack should come, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a timely deal between Chinese Nationalist notables and their former opponents? And to expect the PRC, the KMT and the US to all blame the resort to violence on the irresponsible provocations of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) "unilaterally altering the status quo?"
The people of Taiwan may soon see that they have been very mistaken in thinking that their best hope for peace and democracy lay in incremental movements within a "status quo" that the US allows the People's Republic to define for them. It's been over nine years since former US president Bill Clinton, with strong support from the Republican-led Congress, sent the Seventh Fleet to protect Taiwan's first free presidential elections in 1996. Now the strategic situation has changed; America's military strength and its attention are focused elsewhere. And my fear has been growing that Taiwan's lack of strong democratic action in the intervening years may have sealed its fate.
But China's misguided "Anti-Secession" Law has brought Taiwan sympathetic opinion from around the world. I hope the opportunity will not be lost. If the people of Taiwan were to denounce the Chinese threat in a democratic referendum, if they were to create a constitution to govern their country in their own name, if they were to courageously declare their right to "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station" of a "free and independent state," I can't imagine that we in the US could or would withhold our support.
Michael Falick
Colorado
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US