A post-Chen apocalypse
What would be the responses domestically and abroad if former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) should die in prison?
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) will express his regret about the outcome, but praise the impartial justice that has done its job by torturing and killing Chen, while teaching taidu (台獨, “Taiwanese independence”) a lesson.
Deep-blue Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) supporters will celebrate and reiterate their claim that the “corrupt, disgraced, independence-minded” Chen deserved his punishment and fate.
Across the Taiwan Strait, China will say that this is the destiny of anyone who supports and advocates secession from the motherland.
The international academics and non-governmental organizations that repeatedly called for Chen to be released or granted medical parole will say: “I told you so.”
The Taiwanese public and the Democratic Progressive Party will be shocked and pained at the news.
They will demand a thorough investigation of the entire process that lead to the former president’s imprisonment and eventual death to uncover any malfeasance.
Meanwhile, the number of people who would like to see Ma receive similar treatment to Chen will increase.
The nation would be plunged into chaos, with the pan-blue and pan-green camps trading blame, and China would be the beneficiary.
In reality, they are all political co-conspirators and together, we kill Chen.
Ji Yang
Ohio
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