Western academics being told they deserve condemnation for interfering in a country’s internal affairs after they criticize what they believe might be an abuse of power by the government is something that is usually associated with China. When US government officials or professors accuse China of abusing human rights by arresting dissenters or squelching opposition with supposedly “legal” means, Chinese authorities either refer to them as ignorant foreigners who don’t understand the specific requirements of running the Middle Kingdom, or they accuse them of seeking to denigrate China for political purposes.
The Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan has typically demonstrated a much more amiable attitude to Western officials and academics. After all, the ROC and the US are long-time friends and it is unlikely Taiwan would still be independent if it hadn’t been for the US. That’s why it is all the more disquieting that under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Taiwan is beginning to sound so similar to the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
In an open letter to the KMT administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) first published in Chinese on April 10 and in English on April 11, 34 foreign academics, including former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Nat Bellocchi, questioned the timing of a probe into 36,000 confidential state documents that allegedly went missing under the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration. The case of the allegedly missing documents, which is being investigated by the Control Yuan and could lead to criminal charges against many DPP luminaries who would play an important role in the upcoming presidential election, was announced the day before former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), who is one of those being investigated, announced his bid for the presidency.
The foreign academics couldn’t help but suspect this investigation of being a political ploy — the KMT using the judiciary to influence the elections. In the open letter, they expressed sincere concern that this could erode Taiwan’s democracy.
However, in its sharp response to the letter, the Presidential Office sounded no different from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) called it “unfair” for foreigners who knew little about the situation to “recklessly interfere in and criticize” the legal means the Ma government is using to address the matter. Basically, Lo called Bellocchi, University of Miami professor June Teufel Dreyer, Stephen Yates, a former deputy assistant for national security to former US vice president Dick Cheney, and many other experts on Taiwan nothing but “ignorant foreigners.”
Bruce Linghu (令狐榮達), head of the Department of North American Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was more insidious. He insinuated that Bellocchi was a sick old man who “seldom goes out nowadays,” suggesting he was not well enough to know what he was doing. KMT Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴) said he did not believe the letter was written in English, and that few of the signatories could have read the original Chinese-language version before signing it. However, a majority of the signatories have denied this, saying that it was drafted in English and they did have a part in writing it.
Chiang went further, sounding even more like the CCP thugs he seems intent on emulating, accusing Bellocchi of interfering in Taiwan’s internal affairs and saying he had a political bias toward the DPP.
It appears that the KMT, like the CCP, can’t differentiate true concern for the fate of democracy or the well-being of Taiwanese with a personal attack on the party. Like the CCP, the KMT takes any criticism personally and counterattacks with whatever low-handed means it can muster. The KMT is truly getting back to its roots, with Chiang in particular sounding like his authoritarian grandfather.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS