Alive and well? Look again
Dennis Hickey’s piece indicates that he may need to leave Missouri and get a little updating on what has been happening in Taiwan and Asia in the past decades (“ROC is alive and well in Taiwan,” March 21, page 8).
It is questionable that the world will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the revolution that “overthrew the Qing Dynasty and led to the establishment of the Republic of China [ROC].”
Certainly, the 1.3 billion people in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will celebrate on Oct. 1 — the anniversary of the PRC’s establishment — rather than the ROC’s Double Ten National Day on Oct. 10.
Of those people in the PRC, it is doubtful that the Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians care about the PRC or the ROC. They wish for a restoration of their own land. In Taiwan, the ROC government is downplaying any talk of joint celebrations with the PRC. Add to that the fact that many Taiwanese look back knowing that in 1911, their land was a colony of Japan and that the 1911 revolution in China means little to them.
Further, they are knowledgeable that the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which entered into force in 1952, did not give their land to either the PRC or the ROC. If Taiwanese are going to celebrate any year, they may prefer 1987, which they see as the overthrow of the one-party state of the ROC with the lifting of martial law and the end of the White Terror era.
Or they may look to 1996 as the year to celebrate since it is the year that a true democracy finally came to Taiwan. Also, if Hickey was to keep up with recent polls and surveys, he would see that a growing number of people in Taiwan identify themselves as Taiwanese and not Chinese.
They have no desire to be linked to the “mainland area” that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) tries to claim as theirs under the 1947 ROC Constitution. As a matter of fact, they would prefer to jettison that outdated and imposed Constitution and even seek to change the name of their country. It is only the nostalgic waishengren community in Taiwan that cares about 1911, and even then, not all of them necessarily do.
JEROME KEATING
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