I would like to take issue with the AP news dispatch published in your newspaper "China-based Taiwanese split over identity," Oct 27, page 2).
The article contains the following statement: "Conversations with Taiwanese in China suggest that 56 years of separation have taken a toll on whatever once existed of a common identity."
I wonder where the AP journalist got that 56 years (of separation) from and what historical facts did he or she use to claim that before 1949 there "once existed a common identity"?
Before 1895, Taiwan was a "savage land" where "birds don't bother singing, flowers wear no fragrance, women have no sense of emotion and men have no sense of responsibility," in the words of a Chinese mandarin. Taiwan was a territory of Japan between 1895 and 1945. In 1947, the Taiwanese were randomly massacred by the Chinese government. Where was the so-called "common identity?"
It appears that nowadays any Joe or Jane can claim expertise on Taiwanese history based on Chinese propaganda, without checking with the Taiwanese.
The above-quoted statement or similar brainless interjections such as "Taiwan, which was separated from China in 1949," seem to be a pre-programmed automatic insertion whenever AP and other news agencies dispatch a line mentioning Taiwan.
Can these news agencies please make their software more intelligent, and try to provide readers with knowledge and facts -- not false and useless recitations based on hearsay or propaganda?
Sing Young
Taoyuan
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath