Don't bet on the Olympics
In reference to your editorial, ("Olympic decision hurts Tai-wan," July 18, page 8), both Toronto and Paris have stronger credentials than Beijing in terms of infrastructure, corruption, air quality, water quality and ambient temperature. Be-sides, about 70 percent of the planned contest facilities and the Olympics village still need to be constructed in Beijing. In Beijing, therefore, the Interna-tional Olympic Committee (IOC) made a political choice to host the 2008 Games. This is why the IOC's talk of being non-political is sheer hypocrisy.
Of course, it is a shame that the IOC also overlooks the Chinese government's extremely dismal human rights record and its continual military threat to Taiwan. The Chinese government may have scored high marks for nationalism, but it has failed miserably in both prosperity (about NT$28,000 per capita GDP currently) and civil liberties (there were very few to begin with and they don't appear to be increasing).
Beijing residents will benefit greatly from the preparation and construction for the 2008 Games. But the vast majority (99 percent) of the 1.3-billion people in China will see reduced budgets for education and welfare, because a huge amount of funds (estimated at 160 billion yuan) will solely go to Beijing -- further widening the gap between rich and poor regions in China.
There is a hope or a theory that the Chinese government will now be motivated and/or forced to open up and reform. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Donald S. Shih
St. Louis, Missouri
Chien's column off the mark
I share Chien Shiuh-Shen's (簡旭伸) opinion that Taiwan must rely more on itself for protection ("Taiwan can't count on Washington," July 23, page 8). But, by taking the radical and unfair view that Taiwan must do so because the US is a greedy, untrustworthy nation is very misguided. It's easy to be cynical about the US' motives, but Taiwan simply has no one else.
Taiwan's government doesn't seem to take the matter of war seriously as it maintains only a relatively feeble military. Who else could Taiwan count on? Asia? Asian nations have never been able to unite to provide collective security because each country pursues it's own self-centered agenda, unable to even appreciate the ethics behind fighting for a neighbor's rights of self-determination.
Western Europe? Other than the US, Canada and Australia, it's the only part of the world that takes democratic values seriously, but it refuses to spend the time and money necessary to provide effective security for anyone, even itself.
If not America, who? The US has no duty to protect Taiwan and Taiwan should consider itself lucky that the US devised the Taiwan Relations Act, the only thing which keeps Taiwan in the minds of Washington decision-makers. Indeed, Taiwan should provide security for itself. But the only nation which has the power to help -- and considers it a moral responsibility to do so -- is America.
Wendell Yang
College Station, Texas
About all I learned from Chien's ridiculous argument about US interests is what a desperate need there is to teach analytical skills in Taiwan's schools.
For example, Chien argues that the motive behind the US military campaign in Kosovo was to "create political instability in Europe." What possible reason would the US have for doing so? Has instability in Europe ever been in US interests? Chien's assertion, with no evidence of US intentions, reveals an ignorance unworthy of an academic. A simple trip to the library would open a world of knowledge that he obviously lacks.
Further, his assertion that the US "initiated a rise in oil prices" is just factually wrong. Cheap prices for a decade removed incentives to maintain and ex-pand refinery capacity. On top of that, a large part of the transport ships were retired without being replaced. US refineries are at 90 percent capacity, and together with an increase in consump-tion, prices rose. That's market forces, not conspiracy.
Chien's other assertions are equally devoid of evidence and logic, and don't bear repeating. Suffice it to say, Chien has a lot of homework to do.
Brian Shea
Herndon, Virginia
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS