So much for our hopes of even a little progress for Taiwan in being allowed equal representation with other member countries at the APEC summit. Some days ago we were deploring the fact that Taiwan was still not allowed to send its head of state to the annual leaders' summit, this year to be held in Brunei. However, some progress toward obtaining equal representation appeared to have been made in that, for the first time, Taiwan was able to send an official of the rank of deputy premier, which on previous occasions had been vetoed by Beijing. It now appears that this was an oversight on Brunei's part, accepting Lai In-jaw (
It is tempting to blast Brunei for cravenly caving in to Beijing's pressure to rescind the invitation to Lai, as was announced yesterday. Brunei authorities have let it be known that China threatened that its leader Jiang Zemin (
Much of the embarrassment and bitterness surrounding Taiwan's position at these APEC leadership summits is a result of the nature of the summits themselves. They are not a formal part of the APEC setup -- in which equality of representation is guaranteed under the APEC's founding protocols -- but rather a fringe event that has come to dominate the annual meetings themselves. The leaders' summit is really a get-together by personal invitation -- and it is, of course, up to the host country as to who is invited. There are no rules about this within APEC itself, which is why the guest list is so vulnerable to China's pressure.
So who should go? Two other candidates were being considered before Lai was chosen. One of them was Jeffrey Koo (
Which brings us to a second, far superior possibility, namely Peng Ming-min (彭明敏), a senior advisor to the president known as "the godfather of Taiwan independence." What we like about Peng is that behind his scholarly exterior is an outspoken attack dog whose ability to puncture the bubble of hypocrisy and lies surrounding fellow APEC members' treatment of Taiwan and kowtowing to China is probably second to none. The choice of Peng would do two useful things; it would be both a rebuke for China, and it would also guarantee that Taiwan would be represented for once by an uncompromising champion of its interests, something that cannot be said of previous representatives.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,