EU disaster
I read with much amusement Jean-Claude Trichet’s article on the future of Europe (“The Europe of the future,” Dec. 30, page 9), until I realized it wasn’t April 1. Unfortunately, barring the political elite in Brussels who are no doubt enjoying the Christmas season with yet more champers paid for by taxpayers, the rest of us fail to see the funny side of the financial and political turmoil engulfing Europe, not to mention the ever-growing democratic deficit in EU institutions.
It’s all very well for Europhiles like Trichet to argue for further integration in order to attempt to save the euro (despite the markets having already given up on the hope of Greece and Italy avoiding a debt default, not to mention those next in line after that), but to claim that such a move is compatible with a democratic Europe is nothing short of laughable.
Eurozone countries already have no say over their interest rates (set by the European Central Bank) and the latest EU treaty explicitly states that member states’ fiscal policies will now also be subject to EU scrutiny. Of course, the unelected European Commission has also been making the majority of laws and directives in EU countries for years. If economic policy ceases to be a part of national elections, what on earth is the point of voting?
If Trichet believes, as he says, that “the future of Europe is in the hands of its democracies, [and] the hands of Europe’s people,” then he should be supporting the immediate breakup of the disaster that is the EU.
Oliver Drewett
Kaohsiung
Good to right wrongs
Joseph Allard (Letter, Dec. 31, page 9) recently wrote a letter from Luxembourg to say how he, too, after receiving the Nov. 21 European edition of Time magazine, “was shocked to see Taiwan shown as part of China in its geographic illustration” in one of the main feature articles, as I had noted in an op-ed about Changhua resident Jesse Chalfin’s letter to Time pointing out the error (“Setting confused Time straight,” Dec. 28, page 8).
Allard, to his credit, wrote an e-mail to Time as well “to signal this obvious error,” and although his letter was not published, he said he was nevertheless pleased to see that the error had been corrected later on Time’s Web site. He also noted Chalfin’s letter was published in the Dec. 12 European edition of Time, contrary to what I had erroneously thought was an editorial decision by Time’s editors not to run Chalfin’s letter in either the North American or European editions.
Thanks to Allard’s letter, I now see that I was wrong and that my earlier supposition that Chalfin’s letter did not appear in Time’s international editions for North America and Europe was incorrect. In fact, we now know, thanks to Allard’s letter, that Time published Chalfin’s letter in all of its print editions worldwide. So kudos to Time’s editors for putting Taiwan in the right place on its online map after being informed of the error by Chalfin.
I should have been more diligent in my online research, but for the life of me, I just could not find the links to the letters pages of Time for their editions outside Asia.
I looked and looked and scoured the Internet for a clue, but I found nothing. Now, with Allard’s letter, I know the truth. Thanks for the heads-up.
Dan Bloom
Chiayi
‘Greaning’ Taiwan
Upon reading your article “Taiwan public to pick Taipei 101 wishes,” (Dec. 31, page 2), I was curious enough to visit Taipei 101’s Web site www.taipei-101.com.tw.
What caught my attention immediately was the saluting and dancing green fruit-human character. Cute as it is, one will be hard pressed to miss its main message: “Let’s Green On!”
While believing it to be a catchy, clever slogan, I remain unsatisfied for one small reason. I will admit that the idea of greening our living environment is hard to beat considering the present zeitgeist in the developed world. Nonetheless, I sense that we have to pay for this gain by turning “on” some kind of machine, thereby re-emitting more pollutants.
I thought of an alternative slogan and have sent the message below to Taipei 101’s customer service: “Grean” could be an alternative to “green on.”
“Greaning Taiwan” would mean gradually returning Taiwan to a greener environment while keeping it as clean as possible. This slogan is simple enough for most people to understand as vestiges from both contributing words are still evident.
Michael Tsai
Tainan
Another perspective
While there has been much speculation in recent days over the motivation of the US government in the timing of its visa-waiver program announcement, there is one other possible interpretation, equally speculative, that is also worth considering.
Many have said that if the US wished to remain neutral regarding Taiwan’s upcoming election, it should have delayed the announcement of the program until after Jan. 14.
However, another, much less benign, motivation could have been seen by the US supporting a decision to delay, ie, that the US didn’t trust Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen and wanted to hold back the visa-waiver program’s process as a possible bargaining chip for future negotiations on other matters. Looked at this way, the actual timing of the announcement is what American Institute in Taipei representatives have said it is, an indication that the US will be “happy to work with whoever the people of Taiwan elect in January.” It is a vote of confidence in Taiwan’s democracy, in the quality of the candidates nominated by the various parties and in the wisdom of Taiwanese to make good choices based on the issues they are concerned about. It is saying that the one thing that Taiwanese do NOT need to worry about in making their choice is whether any of the candidates is unacceptable to the US.
This is just my own speculation, but it is worth considering. What is beyond doubt is that democracy is a messy process, and is always in need of improvement and of protection from backsliding, wherever it is practiced (including the US), and that the courage, diligence and vigilance of the people who have given democracy life in Taiwan can be trusted to guide her into the future.
Alicia Lloyd
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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