If there were one thing the election of US President Barack Obama might do for American society, it would be to corrode the utility of the expression “token black.”
Obama’s ethnic background has turned out to be a boon for the local and global reputation of the US political system, but his rise to the presidency at no time could afford to crudely trade on his black identity, because most voters would not have tolerated it. This man became US president because of his intelligence, hard work, attractive policies, teamwork and communicative talent.
Obama gives hope to people who support a fair deal for minorities, but his triumph in overcoming the formidable talents of Democratic challenger Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain also validates the importance of individual merit and ambition over labels and labeling.
It is a classic American story, and it is a long way from over.
It may be impossible for Obama to meet most of the expectations that are being placed on his shoulders, not least by a black American community that remains mired in disadvantage. But expectations are a manifestation of hope, and Obama has engendered a continent’s worth of it, if not a globe’s worth.
The US has helped to generate a phase of horrible economic uncertainty, yet Obama has the opportunity not just to be a good president at a time of increasing deprivation, but also a president that ushers in a new era of international respectability and, in balance, benevolent influence.
For Taiwan, Obama’s rise to the top has brought no shortage of apprehension. While Obama’s principles are quite flawless, the record of his party on relations with Taiwan has been all too inconsistent.
But there are two factors working in his favor: The likely line-up of Washington staffers with Taiwan and China responsibilities may not be as effusively pro-China as had been feared; and it is hard to imagine that things will get any worse than under the last years of former US president George W. Bush’s administration.
For Taiwanese, the overriding question is this: What will Obama do with a Chinese state that is becoming increasingly assertive and arrogant and that is no less willing to rationalize systematic crimes against its own people?
If there is such a thing as a unitary Taiwanese voice, then perhaps this is what it would say to President Obama:
I honor and share your ideals, I wish to strengthen relations with an America that cultivates democracy and freedom and I have my own interests but they are not hostile to those of ordinary Americans. I reject despotism and the cynicism that flows from ossified structures of political patronage — and I ask humbly but urgently that you consider my international and military predicament with sympathy and act on it with resolve as necessary.
I wish China no ill, but the current Chinese government bears ill will for Taiwanese and scorns American values. My present government does not respect the fears of people who see little promise in a Chinese government that crushes human rights and exploits the poor even as it claims to champion both.
I am Taiwanese, and my identity is no less fundamental to my dignity and my future than that of a man who transcended hundreds of years of persecution of people of his kind to lead the most powerful and inspirational nation in the world.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS