Rewriting history An unnamed Reuters correspondent has once again fallen prey to China's propaganda on Taiwan ("Sino-Japan war anniversary stirs memory of unity," Aug. 16. Page 6), describing a reference to the united front with the "Nationalist Party" as "a nod to rival Taiwan." Earlier, the reporter labeled this "a veiled reminder to Taiwan of wartime unity." Which Beijing spin doctor came up with this one? Or does Reuters do the spinning itself? A quick review of the historical facts: 1) Taiwan fought on the other side in World War II as, by the way, Dan Nystedt's excellent feature ("Fighting for the Empire," Aug 13, Page 17) expressed quite eloquently. 2) The "Nationalists" (whom we usually call the KMT) are no longer in power in Taiwan and the ideological successors to those who fought the Japanese are even further in the political wilderness. So this so-called "nod" is about 20 years too late. It is one thing for a wire correspondent to be ignorant; in fact, it happens all the time. However, it is the responsibility of the editors of the Taipei Times to correct them. All wire stories on Taiwan need to be edited thoroughly, to remove misrepresentations and misleading language ("the island," "renegade province," et al). Otherwise, the Times is not living up to its mission to present the reality of Taiwan to the world. Bo Tedards
Taipei Chen's LA stopover I object to a paragraph appearing towards the end of Lin Chieh-Yu's article ("Chen keeps a low profile on LA stop, Aug. 15, Page 1) -- "Almost all the Taiwanese who showed up at the Westin were from pro-independence organizations. No ROC flag was seen waving in the crowd." I was at the Westin with my wife, two children and my parents. Although the banners of the pro-independence groups were prominent, I don't believe most of the people there could be classified as pro-independence. Instead, I would suggest that many of them were simply there to show their support to the democratically elected president from their motherland. As far as the absence of the ROC flag, the point should be made of the deliberate attempt by the TECO, the usual source for the ROC flags, to downplay the official nature of this stopover. Antony Ho
USA WTO political in nature John Locke wrote that "civil society was to be in the control of the men of property" while "the greatest part of mankind" was to be "an object of state policy, an object of administration, rather than fully a part of the citizen body." Such explanations continue to ring true today, though more deceptively, as when John Bolton (China trying to politicize the WTO, Aug. 7, pg. 8) characterizes the WTO as "intended to be purely a trade organization divorced from political questions." This assertion rests on a very questionable definition of what constitutes politics. One definition in Collins dictionary reads politics as "the complex or aggregate of relationships of people in society, especially those relationships involving authority or power." Here are some examples of the far reaching political nature of the WTO: 1) In 1997, the US' EPA's proposed gasoline pollution standards were deemed "technical barriers." 2) Politics was the tool against compulsory licensing for affordable distribution of AIDS drugs in Thailand (nullified by WTO) and South Africa (threat of WTO action). 3) WTO action was threatened by Japan and the EU over the Massachusetts Purchasing Law, a law that penalized companies doing business with Myanmar's brutal dictatorship. Similar laws were used by many local and state governments in the fight against South Africa's Apartheid during the 1980s. The threat of WTO action was cited in the US Supreme Court rulings that struck down this law. The plaintiff, the National Foreign Trade Council, is an alliance of over 600 corporations dedicated to overturning such laws. The jurisdictions and issues dealt with are broad, highly political and consistently favor business profits over other social concerns. Criticism of the PRC's nationalist politics is not surprising in the context of the WTO's transnational corporate orientation. Sadly, Locke's clear insights "about men of property", still ring true. Mark Munsterhjelm
Taipei
The recent passing of Taiwanese actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known to many as “Big S,” due to influenza-induced pneumonia at just 48 years old is a devastating reminder that the flu is not just a seasonal nuisance — it is a serious and potentially fatal illness. Hsu, a beloved actress and cultural icon who shaped the memories of many growing up in Taiwan, should not have died from a preventable disease. Yet her death is part of a larger trend that Taiwan has ignored for too long — our collective underestimation of the flu and our low uptake of the
For Taipei, last year was a particularly dangerous period, with China stepping up coercive pressures on Taiwan amid signs of US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, which eventually led his Democratic Party to force him to abandon his re-election campaign. The political drift in the US bred uncertainty in Taiwan and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region about American strategic commitment and resolve. With America deeply involved in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the last thing Washington wanted was a Taiwan Strait contingency, which is why Biden invested in personal diplomacy with China’s dictator Xi Jinping (習近平). The return of
Actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known affectionately as “Big S,” recently passed away from pneumonia caused by the flu. The Mandarin word for the flu — which translates to “epidemic cold” in English — is misleading. Although the flu tends to spread rapidly and shares similar symptoms with the common cold, its name easily leads people to underestimate its dangers and delay seeking medical treatment. The flu is an acute viral respiratory illness, and there are vaccines to prevent its spread and strengthen immunity. This being the case, the Mandarin word for “influenza” used in Taiwan should be renamed from the misleading
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where