Norwegian massacre suspect Anders Behring Breivik obviously knows less than he thinks he does about Taiwan, or he wouldn’t hold it up as a model of monoculturalism, a problematic and highly improbable political philosophy to begin with.
In a 1,500-page manifesto that he e-mailed before he allegedly detonated a car bomb in Oslo and gunned down dozens of young people on an idyllic island, Breivik repeatedly referred to Taiwan’s so-called anti-immigration policies as a model for Europe, lumping this nation with Japan and South Korea and praising their adherence to racial purity.
What a farce.
Breivik knows little about the dynamic in Asia. If you were to put a Filipino, a Chinese, a Japanese, an Indonesian, a South Korean and a Thai next to each other, Breivik would likely applaud the group for keeping its racial identity pure.
Breivik, in his hate for anybody not European, not Christian and not white, looked around the world for superficial examples that would support his warped vision of reality. Somehow he lit upon Taiwan, maybe because it does have somewhat stricter immigration policies than some Western countries.
However, these policies do not make this nation a monoculturalist society. In Taiwan at the moment, there are hundreds of thousands of foreigners. The majority of them come from Southeast Asia and China. Tens of thousands of cross-cultural marriages are now providing one of the most reliable sources of newborn babies in a nation that has a plummeting birthrate.
Although foreigners from all over the world — Westerners, Africans, Asians and South Americans — might find it difficult to become Republic of China citizens, they have the right to look for employment, gain residence and eventually gain permanent residency. They are allowed to own property and invest in businesses. Calling Taiwan a country that maintains racial purity is a gross misunderstanding of the facts.
When was Taiwan ever a racially pure nation? Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), in his rambling way — saying Taiwan possessed a “juicy culture” — had a point: Taiwan has absorbed the cultures of many parts of the world. First there were the Aboriginal tribes, then an inflow of Han Chinese, many of whom married Aborigines. The Han were followed by Dutch and Spanish influences, then more waves of Chinese, not all of whom spoke the same language. Taiwan was then colonized by the Japanese, who left many imprints in the culture and society, before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) brought yet another version of Chinese culture that allowed and encouraged Taiwanese to embrace aspects of US culture.
What Taiwan has been left with is a fairly vibrant culture that is abundantly open and friendly to outsiders, and readily incorporates aspects of foreign cultures. This is far different from the monoculturalist society that Breivik envisioned, and that’s before mentioning the mix of religions found in this nation: animist, Buddhist, Taoist, Christian and Muslim.
Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are safe, comfortable places to live, not because their societies restrict foreign influences, but because their societies have inculcated a good set of morals into their people.
Breivik was looking around for an excuse to justify his murderous rampage and hopes to find modern-day examples of some mythical racist society he believes Nazi Germany could have created. It would be best if he didn’t look to Taiwan, because this place is nothing like what he envisions. In fact, it’s unlikely his ideal for a country exists anywhere on this planet.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS