Late last month, during a speech at the East Asia summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, US President Barack Obama said that in the Asia-Pacific region, Taiwan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea are among the members of its coalition against the Islamic State group. Several days later, the extremists released a video featuring the flags of the members of Obama’s coalition that included a Republic of China (ROC) flag.
Some observers have said that the US only thinks of Taiwan in bad times, not good times. This is the knee-jerk response of some muddleheaded people.
This kind of thinking is typical of Chinese culture: “Sweep the snow from your own doorstep, and do not bother about the frost on your neighbor’s roof,” as the old saying goes.
It is a product of the small-farmer economy and can easily be employed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its anti-US propaganda.
The crimes committed by terrorists working with, or inspired by, the Islamic State group are crimes against humanity. Regardless of whether Taiwanese have been injured in them, the nation should support the fight against terrorism without fearing the increase in risk that might be caused by the rise in its international profile. The international situation facing Taiwan is forcing the nation to fulfill its obligations before striving for its rights. This problem is caused by China, not the US. Since Taiwan is protected by the US-Japan security treaty, it should support the anti-terrorism campaign.
The Islamic State group should never be conflated with Islam. Nevertheless, China uses the threat of terrorism as an excuse to crack down on its Uighur minority. After several Chinese were beheaded or died in terrorist explosions overseas, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs only issued a vague response, saying it would “bring the terrorists to justice.”
Is killing Uighurs the same as “bringing them to justice?”
The anti-terrorism approach of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration follows the “Chinese mode.” On the eve of the World Games in Kaohsiung in 2009, the Ministry of Justice’s Investigation Bureau asked me for information regarding terrorists secretly entering Taiwan. Am I associated with terrorists just because I am in contact with World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer? This is China’s anti-terrorism logic. One can only hope that Ma did not take his orders from Beijing.
Since we founded the Taiwan Youth Anti-Communist Corps (台灣青年反共救國團) in 2009, the group’s computers have often been hacked, and we have even received letters and telephone calls from people asking us to provide weapons. I wonder if these calls came from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Chinese Communist Party. As a “registered target” on the government’s list, a wrong answer would have put me in the frame and I could have been arrested. After hiring a specialized company to check my home telephones, we found that both lines were wiretapped.
The Islamic State and al-Qaeda are not the only groups committing terrorist acts; there is also the “state terrorism” of national governments against their own citizens. North Korea and China are both examples of this kind of government. A Chinese attack against Taiwan is currently the most serious terrorist threat facing the nation.
Taiwan should redefine its understanding of terrorism to include life-threatening military attacks, cyberattacks and even trade wars.
International order can only be maintained if countries engaged in fighting terrorism cooperate with and support each other.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS