Ben Goren and Milton Liao both make valid points in their recent debate (Letters, Dec. 17, page 8 and Dec. 23, page 8). Goren was on the right track with his reference to a "concept of `Taiwaneseness' that is inclusive, not exclusive," but his urging those in Taiwan to "discard old allegiances and identities" will not stand.
Liao's letter, meanwhile, though possessing something of a reactionary tinge, is correct in recognizing the importance of Chinese culture and history as braided into the fabric of Taiwan.
In recent elections roughly an equal number of people voted for the DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] and the KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party]. Whoever they vote for, most people in Taiwan are normal people, and though their views are in conflict, it is unjust to denigrate their values.
The debate about people and politics in Taiwan is framed as a "dictators versus democrats" argument, which is a slam-dunk for those on the right side of the issue, but yields a context that fosters nothing but enmity.
More broadly, people in Taiwan are much more varied and profound than the true believers would have us believe, while the nation has been subject to unusual conditions of development, autonomy, government, settlement and cultural development.
Liao was right about Chinese ancestry and influence in Taiwan, and anyone who suggests ignoring or severing China from Taiwanese life should be drummed out of the argument. Additionally, we find that European and Japanese influences in Taiwan, past and present, are notable, while nowadays the impact of immigrants from Southeast Asian nations is shaping Taiwanese culture in meaningful ways.
Meanwhile there are a number of other immigrants in Taiwan, not least Europeans or Americans like myself. Our problem can be that although we desire to contribute to harmony and unique identity here, we also wish to maintain our particular identities and allegiances to our nations, homes, cultures and ethnicities.
These are the very pith of who we are, and a flattening solution like "Taiwaneseness" is not appealing (though it is certainly a birthright to many Taiwanese people).
Taiwan, with its amazing variety of communities intersecting with one another, is a country of many ellipses, a contingent, mutable land wherein people can -- must -- at once retain and pare away essentialist conceptions of race, ethnicity, culture and nationality.
In doing this they will discover delightfully robust -- though admittedly decentered -- new identities.
Some have said that Taiwan is not a "normal" country, and this appears to be true in many respects. But perhaps the nation finds itself at the vanguard of a fecund new identity model.
I am no doubt here sounding Utopian, but our challenge may be to combine Taiwan's many identities -- the new arrivals, the isolated others, the merchant strangers, the true believers, the assimilated citizens, the angry activists, the proud natives, the disoriented aliens -- into a many-hued identity that will evince a fruitful, inclusive, cosmopolitan transnationality of creative coexistence and combinatory human potential.
David Pendery
Taipei
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