Mapping a grim future
Only seven months into the new government’s administration, it appears that the monolithic party-state of the 1945-1996 era has been reanimated, albeit dressed in the emperor’s new clothes. If there was the slightest movement toward a separation of powers during the Chen administration, the direction now is away from it, and at a gallop.
Unacceptable is the barefaced arrogance of refusing to take responsibility for errors such as the Maokong Gondola fiasco, wasting money on again renaming the Post Office, police removing the national flag to please Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), the kangaroo court/media trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the obviously politicized and grossly mishandled prosecutions of Democratic Progressive Party officials and the astounding insouciance of foreign interloper Diane Lee (李慶安) in the face of concrete evidence of her mendacity and fraud.
Rule of law in Taiwan is undermined when the most senior and authoritative leaders not only breach basic standards of political ethics but also adopt a diversionary strategy of denial and tit-for-tat mudslinging, especially when guilt is almost incontrovertible.
Most offensive, though, is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) mission to “localize” Taiwan and downgrade its national sovereignty, heedless of the wishes of a majority of residents. “Regional President” Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) absurd and unsupportable claim that Taiwan is a region of the Republic of China (ROC) that includes China and Mongolia is a clear attempt to “internalize” the “Taiwan issue” within a China framework as a prelude to the merging of Chinese and ROC administrative borders and jurisdictions.
J.B. Harley describes a map as a partisan assertion on the nature of space concealed beneath a veneer of representational veracity, an assertion often deployed to subject space to particular social and commercial interests.
Both Japanese and ROC occupations of Taiwan are classic examples of hegemonic cadres attempting to impose a map upon a territory by force in the hope that, given enough time, it will reify into permanent economic, cultural and political institutions.
It is the ongoing tragedy of Taiwan that foreign powers such as China, the US and the KMT continue to refuse to allow the Taiwanese to choose for themselves. In 2006, Ma stated that it was his goal “to shape domestic conditions for unification and plant the unification idea deep in every sector of society in order to move from an anti-independence strategy toward a pro-unification push.” Evidence suggests that this process is well under way.
The KMT is pursuing peace at any cost regardless of the wishes of the electorate, whose sense of “local-national” belonging the party seems to regard with contempt and disdain. One can only hope that a semblance of democracy, human rights and self-determination remains by the next presidential election in 2012, or at least enough for Taiwanese to be able to repair the damage caused to their nation, state and sovereignty by the actions of greedy, short-sighted, reckless and blithe champagne-swilling surrender-pandas.
Here’s to the hope of a happier new year.
BEN GOREN
Taihsi, Yunlin County
No more tantrums
I have been reading and appreciating the Taipei Times for several years, but your recent editorial (“China’s growing leverage on Israel” Dec. 30, page 8) appalled me.
Your statement, “as has happened countless times since the first Intifada, with full US backing, Israel feels no compunction in razing neighborhoods or killing innocent people in its efforts to defend itself” shows not merely an ideological bias, which is acceptable in an editorial, but a scholarly laziness and ignorance that is inexcusable for a newspaper that purports to be Taiwan’s newspaper of record.
You write as if Israel were a monolith. Is it your contention that hundreds of civil society and aid organizations, which include martial as well as peaceful extremists, every soldier, every member of parliament, every government agency and all 7 million citizens of Israel (one third of whom are of Arab ethnicity) are all as cold-hearted as you have described them in one meager sentence?
I would go further and ask what the purpose of your editorial is. Is it to condemn Israeli “aggression” or make a reasoned argument on the relationship between Israel and China?
You would do service to your readers by providing balanced perspectives on one of the world’s most complex sociopolitical conflicts instead of using your editorial to throw tantrums.
HOWARD WESTON
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with