A movement for reform
Conservative forces and vested interests in Taiwan have a negative view of the Sunflower movement, while for those who want reform and advancement in Taiwan, the movement was of multifaceted significance. The students’ courage, rationality, knowledge, enthusiasm, stamina, intelligence and vitality were brought into full play during the movement. They are Taiwan’s hope.
The deepest impression left by the appearance of the movement was its organization, peacefulness and rationality. The planning of the action, preservation of order at the site, acceptance, preservation and division of materials and resources, maintenance of a clean environment, collection of garbage, management, healthcare, hygiene, allocation of equipment and materials, and the organization of the action: Their management capabilities stunned business circles and showed that they understood networks.
The movement’s internal operations were reminiscent of a government framework, with a command center, spokespeople and a task force issuing information to the outside world. Seeing their abilities, many well-known people said that the future of the country could be placed in their hands.
The Sunflower movement was like a litmus test for determining who in Taiwan opposed reform and who wants it.
However, those who always oppose reform are often those who gain from it. They do nothing to contribute to the reform effort, and actually try to destroy it and spread a culture of hate; this seems to have always been the case, ever since ancient times.
While frustrating, history teaches us that those who engage in reform do not care about enjoying the fruits of their efforts. They understand that reform is hard, but they are always willing to choose this hardship over pleasure or happiness.
Kao Chuan-yi
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