President without a country
In a recent speech, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that Taiwan and China do not have a nation-to-nation relationship, but rather a special relationship. In saying so, Ma has converted himself into a president without a country — a president in exile — and stripped all Taiwanese of their nationality.
Taiwan and China had a special nation-to-nation relationship under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and were separate countries on either side of the Taiwan Strait under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Chen let Taiwanese carry passports with the name Taiwan in parentheses so that Taiwanese would not be mistaken for Chinese.
Ma is proud of his “non-nation-to-nation relationship” slogan, indicating that peace could be maintained with such a relationship. Such a slogan is equivalent to a white flag.
The truth is that, under Ma, Taiwan has been under increased military, economic and political threat for more than three years. The modernization of the missiles aimed at Taiwan, implementation of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement as a domestic agreement and intentional mislabeling of Taiwan as “Taiwan, China” are just a few examples of these threats.
Ma has also indicated that food safety is more important than the independence/unification issue and that Taiwan is influencing China.
As president, it is Ma’s responsibility to handle all national issues positively. Taiwanese are more concerned about their own security and identity than influencing China.
A president without a country is Ma’s own choice, but Ma will be held accountable by history for letting Taiwanese lose their nationality, dignity, security and safety.
CHARLES HONG
Columbus, Ohio
Heads buried in the sand
I enjoyed reading the recent article in which US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairperson of the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, outlined her plans to hold hearings on the US’ relationship with Taiwan (“US lawmaker warns China on Taiwan,” June 13, page 1).
In doing so, the lawmaker observed that John Copper, Robert Sutter and others (including myself) have been correct to argue that US support for Taiwan has eroded, while China’s power and clout in the global community continues to accelerate.
In fact, I find it illuminating that she quoted Robert Sutter directly when saying she was “increasingly troubled about recent trends in US-Taiwan relations, trends which suggest, as one academic writes; ‘a marked decline in US support for the island’s freedom of action.’”
As it happens, Sutter and others were criticized in the May/June issue of the Taiwan Communique, which is edited by Gerrit van der Wees, for stating the obvious.
That is why on May 16, I was astonished to read van der Wees’ article that attacked John Copper for weaving “a tale of misconstructions and outright falsehoods” because he dared to make similar observations in your paper (“US will continue to support Taiwan,” May 16, page 8 and “Could US policy abandon Taiwan?” May 11, page 8).
The attack on Copper prompted me to write my first letter to your paper while I was sitting in the lounge of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport waiting for a flight to Taipei.
The letter called on all of the “Taiwan-centric” analysts to take off their “rose-colored glasses” and “wake up and smell the coffee” (Letters, May 30, page 8).
Despite the hate-mail I received from several Americans living in Taiwan, I will now repeat that call because the first step to correcting a problem is to admit that the problem exists. I fully realize that it is difficult to accept the fact that the world is changing, and some do not always like those changes.
However, as Ros-Lehtinen observed, Taiwan is being “marginalized” (her expression) by the US.
Therefore, it might prove to be wise policy to try to do something about it rather than bury our heads in the sand and pretend it is not happening or viciously attack those who believe that problems do indeed exist.
DENNIS HICKEY
Springfield, Missouri
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS