After nearly 15 years, billions of dollars and the deaths of several construction workers, the Hsuehshan Tunnel (
The extent of the return on this massive investment is open to conjecture, but the naming of the freeway has been an all-too-rare instance of peace and harmony between the pan-blue and pan-green camps -- or, at least, those among them who care about such things.
The Chiang Wei-shui Freeway (Freeway No. 5) is named after the Ilan native (
Chiang adopted a grand nationalist mindset based in Chinese culture rather than take the socialist road, and it is this side of him that clearly appeals to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
This time Ma was more successful; his suggestion was greeted warmly by Cabinet officials (Ilan natives among them), who note that Chiang was a trailblazer in the empowerment of ordinary Taiwanese.
Ma Ying-jeou's support for commemorating Chiang (who is no relation to the family of Chiang Kai-shek (
This consensus on a name -- and certain principles Chiang upheld -- for what is likely to be the nation's last major freeway alignment is a welcome respite from the daily stupidity that passes for political debate. But there is still something disappointing about it all.
It is hardly unusual for nations to name major infrastructure projects after political figures. What grates is that after so many centuries of colonial remapping of the landscape, the privileging of political figures over other fine people, places and things remains the norm. It needs to be said: There's more to life than politics, and there's certainly more to Taiwan than historical roll calls of political luminaries -- of whatever stripe.
Considering the overexposure to political figures and ideological elements on street signs that motorists suffer every day, it would have been refreshing to have a freeway to and from a beautiful place reflect that beauty: the Lanyang Freeway, perhaps, or indigenous names for the area. Instead, we will have to continue to make do with references to politicians courtesy of other politicians.
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