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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
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).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS