To compare the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), one only has to compare the 228 Incident with the Tiananmen Massacre.
Like his counterparts in the CCP, KMT chairman-elect Ma Ying-jeou's (
But deep down he is a fraud.
To say that Taiwan can begin to talk about unification with China only if the CCP reverses its verdict on Tiananmen -- his true intention in any case -- is like saying that the KMT would only have to reverse its own verdict on the 228 Incident to rule Taiwan in perpetuity.
The KMT has never apologized for the 228 Incident, which was a massive crime against humanity. The apology was rather offered by a maverick president, Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who was later expelled by the KMT. Restitution was paid by the wrong party -- Taiwanese taxpayers -- who had nothing to do with committing such horrendous crimes.
While the Democratic Progressive Party administration has had to remove officials and apologize because of there being too much rain and because of problems with infrastructure that have been neglected for decades, the KMT's murderers have never even recognized the crimes of 228, nor the White Terror that followed.
The CCP's reversal of verdict on the Tiananmen Massacre is no more important than a KMT reversal on 228. For Ma, however, there would be nothing better than the KMT giving a small favor such as a "verdict reversal" to entrench KMT authoritarianism all over again, and never have to transfer power to another party.
So, thanks but no thanks. Until the CCP transfers its power to a democratic system, no talk on unification is needed or will be allowed by Ma's real boss -- the Taiwanese. Until Ma apologizes for the KMT's horrendous crimes during 228 and the White Terror and does so sincerely, and until he recognizes the right of the Taiwanese to determine their own future, he is unfit to lead Taiwan.
Chen Ming-chung
Chicago, Illinois
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