While Russian President Vladimir Putin’s evil design to conquer Ukraine has faced a huge setback, the global condemnation of China’s assertive actions against Taiwan has also been far and wide. Legislative visits to Taiwan by the US, Japan, France and other countries in the past few months have punctured China’s bluff of treating Taiwan as part of its territory. At the same time, the demand by several countries to include Taiwan as a member of the UN has also underscored the limitations of China’s economic clout. India is also closely observing developments in the Taiwan Strait. Expressing its displeasure over China’s belligerent behavior against Taiwan, the Indian government last month asked for the exercise of restraint, avoidance of unilateral actions to change the “status quo,” de-escalation of tensions, and efforts to maintain peace and stability in the region. India also refused to reaffirm the “one China” policy. This development assumes a huge significance in India’s policy toward Taiwan, because New Delhi in the past refrained from taking an open position on the Taiwan issue. Of course, India’s changed position on the Taiwan-China issue has largely been conditioned by security considerations. New Delhi and Taipei share the convergence of security concerns emanating from China. While Taiwan is facing an existential threat from China, India faces a long-running border dispute with it. Although New Delhi has pursued peaceful means to address the border problem with Beijing, the Galwan Valley military clash between the two sides in 2020 underlined China’s malicious ambitions. Consequently, a strong public clamor for fostering ties with Taiwan started in India. While the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has deepened efforts to expand ties with Taiwan in the field of trade and commerce, as well as people-to-people engagement, New Delhi is reportedly also exploring the possibility of
As news of the Ukrainian military’s success against Russian occupying forces trickles in, the old adage of “tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are” is getting an update for contemporary world politics. It appears that the quality and resolve of a country’s international friends could make the difference in whether it stands a chance against a great power bully. That great powers behave like bullies on the world stage is hardly surprising — some might even argue that such behavior is a feature of their international identity. For this reason, small states have long been establishing various hedging and bandwagoning strategies to ensure their security and survival. However, the situation in Ukraine seems to add a few new wrinkles that have a direct bearing on Taiwan and its relations with China. Namely, small states might have a few trump cards up their sleeves depending on who they develop as allies. Taiwan is accustomed to China’s regular bullying tactics. Yet, even by the poor standards of cross-strait relations, Beijing’s attempts to blockade the island in the wake of US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei was unprecedented. For nearly three days last month, China conducted aggressive military drills that clearly demonstrated its preparedness to claim Taiwan. This show of force also seemed to indicate that apart from symbolic gestures and statements, Taiwan’s partners chose to keep a low profile. For instance, while Washington sent the USS Ronald Reagan near Taiwan, the supercarrier was ordered not to enter the Taiwan Strait — unlike developments during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis more than 25 years ago. Paradoxically, it was small countries on the opposite side of the world that seemed to challenge Beijing more assertively. The Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia have withdrawn
Taiwan is approaching the post-pandemic era. If we truly care for the nation, we should devote ourselves to reopening Taiwan to the international community. As the pandemic has developed at different phases, the government should also help the public understand how to cope with it. Only in so doing can Taiwan coexist with COVID-19. To deal with the evolving situation, I would like to offer two suggestions to the government. First, reopen our borders gradually and steadily to allow a variety of exchanges, including business travel and tourism. We must interact with other countries to stimulate our own economy. Second, be straightforward with the public when sketching out plans. To reassure the public, the government must clearly explain updated measures that are designed for coexistence with the virus. Most countries have relaxed their quarantine rules, with China being a notable exception. The 0+7 self-monitoring scheme Taiwan is about to implement is not only in line with other countries, it helps promote international exchanges, and will give the economy a much needed shot in the arm. As it is impossible to implement a “zero COVID-19” strategy, the government must show the public what needs to be done to deal with the virus. It should clarify what the strategies are and instruct Taiwanese to take care of their health. This is the best way to coexist with the virus. Taiwan has an ample supply of vaccines and medications. It not only has a high vaccination rate, but has also made the necessary medications available to high-risk groups. It is one of the most well-placed countries to prevent severe symptoms or death in people who have become ill from the virus. Most countries at this stage of the pandemic are more focused on preventing severe illness and death, and on helping elderly people who are ill with
EDITORIAL CARTOON
“Be indispensable.” This commonly given career advice is hard to argue with. No doubt it sounds appealing these days, with a softening economy and layoffs once again dominating the business news. It is advice I have tried to follow for much of my own working life. However, the idea is deeply flawed. Being indispensable ought to be insurance against getting fired, and getting fired is horrible. Anyone who has been through even a single round of layoffs knows the anxiety it causes, the Hunger Games feeling of needing to out-compete one’s friends and colleagues. Indispensability seems like the best armor, but that armor can become a cage. Sometimes an effort to be indispensable turns an employee into a one-person bottleneck. If they are the single point of failure for a project, or the only person who knows how the system works, or the one employee the client is willing to talk to, it can be near impossible for them to leave — whether that is taking time off for vacation or advancing to a bigger job. A boss might reluctantly think: “Janice has really earned a promotion, but we would need to hire two people to replace her,” or “It is not fair to keep sending Paul to deal with the angriest customers, but he is the only one who can talk them down.” These employees are so valuable in their current jobs that promoting them would create an immediate problem for their managers. In a 2020 survey by LinkedIn, talent professionals said the biggest barrier to internal recruiting was bosses wanting to hold on to their best people. This might not be a problem if those employees are happy, but because so many organizations require a promotion in order to get a raise, indispensable people can quickly become underpaid. If Janice had the opportunity to
Giorgia Meloni’s triumph as the first woman to lead a winning party in the macho world of Italian politics is not a moment to celebrate. She has brought the far-right into the European mainstream, precisely a century after her Republican Fascist Party forebear Benito Mussolini seized power. It could take until the middle of next month to know the exact composition of the new Italian government. However, polls on Sunday night crowned Meloni a clear winner. Italy’s new government is set to be a coalition led by Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, joined by the anti-immigrant League for Salvini Premier party and the Putin-friendly Forza Italia party. What is certain is that she has fractured an entente in European politics by bringing a party with its roots in neo-fascism into power for the first time since World War II — at the helm of a founding country of the EU. Following the ascent of the far-right Sweden Democrats party this month as kingmakers in their governing coalition, the question is where could the next domino fall? Southern Europe is ripe for the political disruption Meloni represents. The far-right Vox, Spain’s third-largest political party, entered a regional government for the first time in March, and Meloni said last week she hoped her success would pave the way for it to gain greater power. In Portugal, the right-wing Chega party took 12 seats in January’s elections, up from just one seat in 2019. Divisive leaders are gaining traction amid the challenges posed by immigration, rising poverty, falling birthrates, the climate emergency, deindustrialization and youth unemployment. It would unite discontent in southern Europe with the EU’s eastern flank. Meloni, who has been the head of the umbrella group European Conservatives and Reformists Party since 2020, has supported Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and voted against a motion in the
During his speech at the Global Taiwan Business Forum in Kaohsiung on Tuesday morning, former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo made a reference to how he graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point only a decade after the fall of Saigon. He said at the time that he would have been dubious that the US and Vietnam would be able to cooperate on as many issues as they do today. The choice of Vietnam was telling. His immediate point was that the US’ relations with Vietnam are a measure of how quickly and radically the international situation can change, given changing realities on the ground. Vietnam is an example of a regional player that finds the rise of China concerning; the US needs nations in the region to help contain the ambitions of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Pompeo’s speech was ostensibly about Taiwan’s post-COVID-19 pandemic business opportunities from the perspective of international economic and trade trends. He emphasized his decade-long experience as a businessman as well as his experience as a politician to bring together the topic of his speech and the reason that he was the person to deliver it. While the speech was written in consideration of regional business ties and opportunities, politics was ever present. Throughout, China was the elephant in the room, either implied or explicitly mentioned. He spoke of the warmth he received in Taiwan, both from officials and the business community, saying that this was his second trip to Taiwan. He contrasted this with his persona non grata status in China, an expression of the reality that Taiwan and China are not the same place. US-China relations have not always been this bad. For decades, successive US administrations pursued a policy of political and economic engagement with Beijing, from which China benefited
Founded in 1921, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has remained in power for 73 years since 1949. Despite changes of leadership, the CCP remains the ruling party. The CCP’s 20th National Congress is set to open on Oct. 16, and the confirmation of the date implies the settlement of personal and political disputes inside the party. The central ideology of the CCP has kept evolving — from Marxism-Leninism, and former Chinese leaders Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) and Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) doctrines, to former Chinese presidents Jiang Zemin’s (江澤民) “Three Represents,” Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) “Scientific Development Concept,” and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) Xi Jinping Thought. The CCP has 96 million members, making it the largest civilian organization on Earth. Currently, 2,300 delegates are chosen to attend the party congress, during which about 200 full members and about 160 alternate members would be elected to the 20th Central Committee, the highest authority of the CCP. In addition, 25 top officials would be elected to the politburo and seven leaders would be elected to the Politburo Standing Committee, including the general secretary serving as the Chinese president. Together, the group of seven would form the next generation of CCP leadership. Due to political disputes, the CCP in 1982 replaced its single leadership system under a party chair with a collective leadership system under the general secretary. The way in which the CCP’s national leaders are selected is unique in that they are not directly elected, but are selected based on their administrative performance. A person who begins to work for the party upon graduating from college at the age of 22 starts at the township level and gradually works their way up to the municipal or provincial level. To proceed, they must have experience leading two municipalities or provinces, of which one has to be poor
The 77th session of the UN General Assembly opened on Sept. 13. More than 10 overseas Taiwanese organizations had submitted a petition to the UN secretary-general, protesting that 23.5 million Taiwanese are excluded from representation. As president of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance, I also submitted a letter to the UN, saying that Taiwanese should have the right to be represented under the name of Taiwan. The government has been asking its allies to support Taiwan’s entry into the UN, but under its official name, the Republic of China (ROC). Doing so would have involved the right to represent China, with the ROC replacing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) at the UN. This would be opposed by China and even if Taiwan were successful, it would have meant that Taiwan was representing China, and that Taiwan was China, which is clearly not the case. After World War II, the US and the Soviet Union formed the UN together with the other founding members of the Security Council. The Security Council included the US, the Soviet Union, a Britain much weakened from the war, a France newly emerged from the ignominy of German occupation and the ROC of the Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) government, saved from the brink of extinction during the Second Sino-Japanese War only by the support of the US. Chiang’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was defeated by the Chinese communists after the war. His military clique privately deployed resources to occupied Taiwan and Chiang followed in exile, saying that the KMT represented the ROC, thus retaining China’s seat in the UN. On Oct. 25, 1971, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, recognizing the PRC as the only legitimate representative of China at the UN and removing “the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek.” This was Chiang and his representatives being removed; Taiwan
Double standards On Sunday, independent Taipei mayoral candidate Vivian Huang (黃珊珊) launched her election campaign headquarters at the Chung Cheng Auditorium on the Bo-ai campus of the University of Taipei, an event that came under fire from city council members for allegedly contravening administrative neutrality. In response, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said in an interview that schools are rental venues, but the event could “only be conducted indoors, while participants could not carry flags outdoors.” As an administrative staff member who has worked at a school in Taipei for years, I know the rules regarding administrative neutrality like the back of my hand, and they call for rejecting any rental applications concerning political campaigns or candidates. Ko’s response was sheer nonsense, as he was suggesting that there is a difference between “indoors” and “outdoors” when enforcing administrative neutrality. With Huang setting a precedent, she and Ko have opened a can of worms for schools in due course. Schools should always abide by the administrative neutrality principle. Whether it is indoors or outdoors, schools are not allowed to rent their spaces out to political groups to hold events. This rule has been explicit, clear, easy to execute, and so far not seen any exception and suffered no dispute. It is baffling why the University of Taipei would break such a long-standing rule. Was it out of coercion and pressure? Schools should deny anything that is politically related from entering the campus. If administrative neutrality cannot be applied to both indoors and outdoors, then it is a self-deceiving act of pseudo-neutrality. If Ko’s explanation stands, could institutions with only indoor spaces, such as police stations, be added to the list of rental venues? He said that as long as people do not carry political flags outside, auditoriums can be rented for political campaigns. If such a
EDITORIAL CARTOON
The so-called “partial mobilization” announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin last week has changed the character of the Ukraine war for Russians in a matter of days — and for all the ensuing scenes of disarray and unrest within Russia, the mobilization’s impact will soon change the character of the war for Ukrainians, too. Less than a week into the mobilization, whether it is really partial or general is hard to tell. Putin’s decree has a conspicuously missing paragraph — Item 6 is immediately followed by Item 8. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the classified Item 7 deals with the number of people to be mobilized. Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu put that at 300,000 people, and Peskov has denied media reports that the actual number in the decree is 1 million or 1.2 million people — but the absence of a precise number fits the situation on the ground best. Putin on Wednesday last week said in his address to the nation that only people who had done mandatory service in the military, had a skill that was in short supply (such as artillery or tank training) and, preferably, combat experience would be called up. However, it soon transpired that quotas had been handed down to local draft offices, and many of them rushed to grab every man they could get lest they be accused of insufficient zeal. That has meant calling up people with disqualifying health conditions, those who never served, those who are too old — older than 40 — to be privates. In some areas, draft notices have been delivered in the dead of night, their recipients required to show up at the recruitment center the following morning. In Dagestan in the northern Caucasus, the indiscriminate mobilization has sparked riots and clashes with police. In eastern Siberia, a
The US withdrawal from Afghanistan after two decades of war opened up an opportunity for China to expand its influence and lock down access to the country’s vast mineral deposits. It has not worked out that way. More than a year after US troops left, Afghanistan’s economy is collapsing, 19 million people are at risk of acute hunger and the investment the Taliban was counting on from Beijing has not arrived. Both sides blame each other. “There has not even been a penny of investment by China,” Afghan Chamber of Commerce and Investment vice president Khan Jan Alokozay said in an interview. “Many of their companies came, met with us, conducted research, and then left and vanished, which is frustrating.” From China’s perspective, the Taliban has not shown it is doing enough to crack down on a group that has ties to “separatists” in its far western Xinjiang region, two people familiar with the issue said. The Taliban is also seeking to renegotiate the terms of existing projects to tap Afghanistan’s resources, the people said. While the Taliban has vowed not to allow terror groups to operate on Afghan soil, China on multiple occasions has implored the group to take action against the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a Muslim group seeking to establish an Islamic state overlapping with China’s vast Xinjiang region. China and Afghanistan share a 76km border. The Taliban has repeatedly said that the ETIM is not operating in Afghanistan and that it “won’t allow anyone to use Afghan soil against any other country,” Doha-based Taiban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said. However, a UN report in May cites several nations as saying the ETIM remains a presence in Afghanistan. Support for any group stoking tensions in Xinjiang is a red line for Beijing, which has been accused by the
As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drags on, with Moscow facing a series of defeats, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday last week issued the country’s first mobilization order since World War II. On Friday, he hurriedly launched referendums in Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine on whether they should join the Russian Federation. These are desperate acts in the face of Ukraine’s counteroffensive. While many countries have condemned Russia, China has supported it with ambiguous statements, a warning sign that another act of hegemonic expansionism is being rehearsed in the Taiwan Strait region. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February was aimed at reviving an old dream of the Soviet empire, but this month Ukraine has launched a fierce counteroffensive, recovering some of its lost territory, while putting pressure on Crimea and the eastern Donbas region, which Russia seized in 2014. Putin has responded with his mobilization order to boost Russia’s fighting force, as well as bringing forward the date for referendums in Luhansk, Donetsk and other Russian-occupied areas. He has also threatened to use nuclear weapons. British Prime Minister Liz Truss summed up the situation perfectly, saying that Moscow’s recent moves highlight the “catastrophic failures” of its invasion. Putin’s mobilization order has sparked protests in Russia and prompted potential draftees to flee, much as Ukrainians fled the invading Russian army. These events show how much leaders of one-person, one-party dictatorships are obsessed with hegemonic expansion, without regard for international law or the well-being of their citizens. Similar attempts to annex a neighboring country have been going on for a long time over the Taiwan Strait. The People’s Republic of China, which calls itself a steadfast partner of Russia, has long claimed that Taiwan, which it has never governed, is part of China. This claim is designed to present Beijing’s ambition to invade its neighbor as
China has quietly unloaded 10 percent, or US$100 billion, of its US Treasury holdings in the first half of the year. During the past 40 years of rapid economic growth after recovering from a quasi-ruined state that officially ended in 1976, China has amassed a huge pile of foreign reserves partially through its trade surplus. The US Treasuries have always been the prime choice for China to park its foreign reserves. What made it run away from the traditional safe haven for its hard-earned foreign reserves? One explanation is that Beijing is leveraging its financial power as the second-largest US Treasury holder to retaliate against Washington for its increasingly open support of Taipei and hawkish actions against China. This view has been popular among Chinese nationalistic thinkers and public thought leaders. By dumping US Treasuries, as the theory goes, China can induce waves of sell-offs of the bonds and tumble their value. The problem with this thinking is that it does not account for the size of US Treasuries held internationally, which is US$7.4 trillion. China holds merely 1.3 percent of them. Even if China manages to unload its entire holding all at once, which is unfeasible, it would still not be enough to cause a market tsunami as destructive as intended. Thus, retaliation is not behind China’s action. Another explanation is that China’s latest move is part of its precautionary efforts of reducing its dependence on the US dollar-dominated international monetary system. Since the outbreak of Russia’s war in Ukraine in February, Beijing has strongly objected to any international sanctions levied on Moscow, and has been keeping a watchful eye on how Russia manages to withstand the sanction-inflicted financial crunches. So far, China has received mixed signals from Russia. The seizure of nearly two-thirds of Russia’s foreign reserves by the West has crippled
Sometimes When there is a choice to be made, none of the options are good. The choice between hooking up with communism — in its Chinese iteration, the one that bugs Taiwan the most — and neofascism, of the back-to-the-roots Italian variety or any other kind, is such a choice. The good news is that Taiwan does not have to choose. It neither needs to cozy up to China — the successes of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration, despite its shortcomings, are evidence of that — nor does it need to embrace Italy under its likely new leader, Italian lawmaker Giorgia Meloni, whose Brothers of Italy party won Sunday’s general election. Should Meloni become prime minister, distance the country from China and cut its ties with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, as indicated in “Italy ahead of Taiwan-friendly shift” (Taipei Times, Sept. 25, page 3), it would indeed be good for Taiwan, but her administration as a whole would be bad for democracy worldwide. Despite slightly toning down its euroskeptic messaging over the past few years, the Brothers of Italy, a successor of the neofascist Italian Social Movement party, until Feb. 24 advocated boosting the EU’s ties with Russia. Last year, Meloni said that the US’ foreign policy doctrine, ironically with the exception of from January 2017 to January last year, was to “create chaos” abroad, implying that Italy and Europe should no longer play along. While other far-right parties in Europe took a hit in the polls due to their continued calls to cozy up to Russia even after its invasion of Ukraine, Meloni’s party immediately took a stance against Moscow, which contributed to its wave of public support that is likely to carry her into the Chigi Palace in Rome. While Meloni’s position on China is fairly consistent — she championed the “Tibetan
Stand up for voting rights On Nov. 26, voters will be asked to cast their ballots for various candidates in the nine-in-one elections, as well as, more importantly, in a referendum. Earlier this year, with 109 legislators present at a meeting presided over by Legislative Speaker You Si-kun (游錫?), the Legislative Yuan voted unanimously in favor of a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18. Two Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, Lee Gui-min (李貴敏) and Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), and independent Legislator May Chin (高金素梅) were absent. The amendment cannot pass unless more than 9.65 million voters cast ballots in its favor in the coming referendum. The election is only two months away, and yet, so far, only some Democratic Progressive Party candidates have highlighted the referendum. Other political parties and politicians have hardly touched upon this issue. Although the constitutional amendment is on the verge of success, it might still be defeated in the referendum. More than 100 countries in the world have set 18 as the age of majority. Most of these are civilized, advanced countries, and Taiwan is comparable in terms of development. We have no reason to deny our young people the right to participate in political affairs. Besides, it was legislators themselves who voted in favor of this constitutional amendment. Are they not the politicians who repeatedly claim that they value our citizens’ political rights more than anything else? Is this once again a game of bluff? Are they unafraid of being exposed? Political parties and politicians sometimes appear in disguise. Young voters must see through them, and boycott their election campaigns and oppose candidates who do not follow through on their earlier support for lowering the age of majority to 18. Young Taiwanese must vote, and fight for their rights. Wang Yu-mei Yunlin County
EDITORIAL CARTOON
In the second week of December 1978, between 1 million and 2 million people marched peacefully through Tehran calling for the shah to leave. About one-fifth to almost a half of the city’s population was on the streets. The CIA, warily watching opposition in a key regional ally and client for US arms, noted that one man was “the focal point,” providing “guidance and support for the movement acting in his name in Iran.” This was ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then thousands of kilometers away in exile in Paris, although his portrait was carried by many of the marchers. Decades later and the regime established by Khomeini is still in power in Iran. Crowds are on the streets again in Tehran and other Iranian cities following the death on Sept. 16 of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, arrested by the morality police, who accused her of breaking laws on wearing the hijab introduced by Khomeini’s regime in 1981. Women have thrown headscarves on to fires, vast posters celebrating the regime have been torn down, police stations torched. The unrest appears set to intensify. Could this finally be the spark that leads to massive change in Iran, as many hope? Some believe a fuse has been lit. Oppression of women is an existential issue for the regime, but perhaps, too, a fundamental weakness. The powerful and impressive images coursing through our Facebook and Twitter feeds, and reproduced by mainstream media, might lead us to believe they are right. Is history repeating itself? Certainly some protesters have invoked parallels with the tumultuous events of 1979, chanting: “Death to the oppressor, be it the shah or the supreme leader!” There are many reasons to be impressed by what is happening in Iran. Protests on this scale prompted by anger over the abuse of women’s rights are rare anywhere. Men are on
RSS