Ma’s pal Paal
Former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) director Douglas Paal has been undiplomatic toward Joseph Wu (吳昭燮), the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) new representative to the US, compared to his treatment of King Pu-tsung (金溥聰), Taiwan’s new representative to the US (“Paal gives advice to Taiwan’s US envoy,” Dec. 5, page 3).
Paal talked about the “high quality of communication” between Taiwan and the US in welcoming King and praised the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) , but mentioned “ambiguous, ambivalent or sensitive issues” when referring to Wu and the DPP in general.
Apparently, Ma’s administration communicates much better with foreigners than with Taiwanese who find Ma’s “sensitive” policies too opaque and ambiguous.
When Ma’s campaign for the January presidential election was at a low ebb, Paal openly endorsed him and even supported Ma’s so-called “1992 consensus.”
On the other hand, Paal criticized the “Taiwan consensus,” proposed by DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) as being ambiguous.
When Ma’s US green card became a hot issue in the 2008 presidential election, Paal himself, as then-AIT director, “clarified” to Taiwanese that Ma did not have a green card.
Today, the “1992 consensus” is still a controversy and Ma’s green card is still a mystery to the majority of Taiwanese.
Paal indicates that Taiwan-China relations appear more stable today than for more than 60 years. He forgot to mention that Taiwan’s sovereignty is suffering.
Taiwan has two representatives in the US, possibly because Taiwan is not a normal country and the US is crucial to Taiwan.
If Taiwan were a normal country, it would be recognized by the US, Japan, the EU and the UN, and King would be the ambassador.
Wu has an important role to play since he has to let the US know what Taiwanese want, especially when Ma’s current approval rating is only 13 percent.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Bumbled media plurality
Media systems in democratic countries are supposed to provide two vital functions.
The first is a “marketplace of ideas” where newspapers and TV channels serve as carriers for various competing perspectives and facilitate a public sphere for the debate of important political and social issues.
The other is to be the “watchdog of democracy,” providing a critical coverage of what powerful political actors are doing, especially in regard to what they are doing wrong.
Unfortunately, purely market-driven media systems tend towards oligopolies, with a few media conglomerates dominating the scene.
This is bad for plurality, and for this reason some European countries actively promote media diversity.
In Sweden, for example, the government makes sure that there are at least two competing newspapers in every market, both national and local, by subsidizing the economically weaker title when necessary.
In Taiwan, however, the government seems to be going in the opposite direction, facilitating the emergence of a media monopoly.
The hotly disputed Next Media Group deal may change the media landscape dramatically.
Under previous owner, Hong Kong tycoon Jimmy Lai (黎智英), Next Media has usually provided a critical perspective on political realities in China and on President Ma’s pro-China policies.
However, the would-be new owners of the Next Media Group all have economic stakes in China and rather pro-Chinese reputations.
Instead of performing a watchdog role, the Apple Daily, Next TV and the group’s other media outlets are now likely to become uncritical supporters of all things Chinese.
The government does not see the problem. Actually, it may see one problem disappearing, with an annoying watchdog turned into a lapdog.
However, even if the media claim that Ma presides over a stimulating and democratic media system, it would not stop critical voices from responding that Taiwanese media plurality is being bumbled.
Jan Miessler
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath