Character flaws
The Ministry of Education recently suggested that the name Taiwan should be written exclusively in traditional Chinese characters (臺灣) instead of the simplified form (台灣). This suggestion has been criticized as “too much leisure after a meal” to use a Taiwanese metaphor. It is as meaningless as suggesting that we write “the United States of America” instead of “the USA” or “the US.” The simplified form for Taiwan has been used for decades or even centuries — well before China adopted simplified Chinese characters, if that is what concerns the ministry.
It would be more meaningful if the ministry came out and suggested not writing or calling Taiwan “Chinese Taipei” or “Taiwan, China.” In fact, Taiwan is not the Republic of China or the ROC, otherwise the term “the ROC on Taiwan” would be nonsensical. Taiwan has a much longer history than the ROC.
There are many other meaningful things on which the ministry could focus, such as educating students more about the true history and geography of Taiwan; treating Taiwanese graduate students as the equals of Chinese graduate students in granting scholarships; allowing college students the freedom of expression in their Internet communications; not changing transliterated signs from Tongyong pinyin, developed by the ministry itself, to Hanyu pinyin; and never adopting simplified Chinese characters.
CHARLES HONG
Columbus, Ohio
Stretching a point too far
In an attempt to draw comparisons with the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), Huang Tien-lin (黃天麟) misrepresents the EU, perpetuating common misconceptions that exist more generally in Taiwan (“The EU is an example of effects of integration,” Dec. 12, page 8).
The EU may have been established in name in 1993 — but that rather ignores the previous 35 years of economic integration that did not fundamentally change the process of integration, but rather enhanced it.
Contrary to his claim, there were no “early harvest lists” as such — the terminology does not exist in an EU context and deliberately confuses the EU with the ECFA between China and Taiwan to make a simplistic political point.
Germany did not become “a hub” because of the market economy post-1993, as implied. It was a major European economy in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and became so again in the immediate postwar period — ironically, largely through economic planning and not through free market economics. Moreover, an understanding of European economics would perhaps reveal more than one “hub” existing across several countries.
The most famous one that’s been suggested — the “Blue Banana” — extended from northern Italy through parts of France and Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and southern and central UK. In this respect, economic integration arguably allows for the further development of such cross-border hubs.
The EU has not “recently admitted” to the existence of “two-track” development in the eurozone. It was evident as far back as the early 1970s when the European Economic and Monetary Union was first discussed. There were at the time, and would continue to be, regional differences. Indeed, special funds were established to try and mitigate these affects, funds that it could be argued Greece and Ireland in particular became too reliant on in the 1990s.
In addition, it was clear as long as 10 years ago that (for example) Ireland’s economy was experiencing an unsustainable boom — and that Germany’s economy was sluggish. Huang is, moreover, misinformed if he believes EU member states are of a similar size (they are most certainly not) and that the territorial size of a nation-state alone has some sort of bearing on its economy, as he appears to imply.
I could go on, but most comparisons between the EU and the ECFA are seriously flawed simply because in theory and in practice EU member states respect each others sovereignty as independent nation-states — they have no constitutional claims on each other and do not threaten each other with military action.
However, there is one lesson from the EU that is relevant to the ECFA. Economic integration leads to political integration. Indeed, political integration is the whole point of the EU and it has been since the 1950s. Economic integration was never intended purely for economic benefit alone, but for the political integration that it was hoped would follow.
Interestingly, Beijing is very open in viewing the ECFA as a first step in a similar process of economic integration leading inexorably to political integration between Taiwan and China.
PAUL DEACON
Kaohsiung
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