Gujarat strife discussed
Jonathan Power should be commended for his article on South Asia ("The US is piggy in the middle between Pakistan and India," May 6, page 9). However, I would like to take this opportunity to comment upon some of his observations.
-- The state government of Gujarat can be accused of sheer incompetence and administrative apathy, but not collusion or planning massacres. How the various diplomatic missions came to their conclusions is best left for them to clarify. But how much information can be gathered in a visit of a couple of hours to Ahmedabad? Maybe they should become detectives.
-- Power goes on to ask how can 180 million muslims trust India's secular fabric. Power should not be so condescending. Gujarat, with 5 million Muslims, is part of India. Most Muslims live in other parts of India and none of these places have had any trouble as a result of the events in Gujarat. Ordinary Indians are still going about their daily grind. That should be a clear enough answer for you. It's like saying that because the tormentors of Rodney King were acquitted by an all-white jury, blacks deserve to ask for a black homeland carved out of the US.
-- Instead of harping on the UN resolutions, and we know how much every country worth its salt "respects" UN resolutions, the way out is to convert the current border between the two parts of Kashmir into a permanent one. This would mean recognizing the partition of Kashmir, which has been the reality for the past 50 years. This is the only way out of the mess.
-- Power should concentrate his energies on lobbying the US government to encourage Pakistan to recognize the above and stop trying to justify its failed "two nation" theory. The methodical way in which the train was torched at Godhra indicates good organization. And remember Gujarat has a long porous border with Pakistan. Whether Pakistan actually participated in the riots can be investigated. However, what cannot be denied is that Pakistan can be relied upon to fish in troubled waters and provide Muslims in India with weapons and money for "revenge."
Kumar Parekh
Kenmore, Australia
Missionaries misunderstood
How sad I was to read Dan Bloom's letter on missionaries in Taiwan (Letters, May 6, page 8). Bloom has definitely been misinformed regarding the purpose of missionaries.
A missionary is someone who "goes into all the world to preach the gospel of Christ." No religion is superior to any other religion. Jesus did not come to state that Christianity was superior to Buddhism, Daoism or any other religion. According to the Old Testament prophets and the teaching of Jesus, God is very critical of "religion" if that means religious services divorced from real life, loving service and the moral obedience of the heart. The purpose of Jesus was to show people that He is the only way to God. And that should be the purpose of the missionary, too.
As for conversion, this also is not the work of the missionary. A person cannot convert another person; it is the sole responsibility of God to change hearts and lives. May God change the heart of Mr. Bloom.
Norma Christiansen
Taichung
Police not always helpful
The tone of your article on the Foreign Affairs Police ("Pay attention to your visa, officer advises foreigners," May 14, page 4) suggests how cheerfully helpful they are while administering their visas. I admit that over the past 15 years there have been vast improvements to the service offered to foreigners visiting Taiwan, but I find it hard to believe that their general attitude of moral superiority and rudeness when faced with a visa overstay has changed much. What is most galling is that the cause of this problem, confusing visa requirements, is readily admitted by the police themselves.
Remembering my terrible experience of overstaying, I looked back at my old passport and my first visa to Taiwan reads: "Visitor visa, valid until ..." Being the top two lines I took this to mean (as most people do) that my right to stay in Taiwan expires on the given date. Those who read further discover the following phrase at the bottom: "Duration of stay: 60 days."
In other words, the right to enter Taiwan is what is being stated, not the date to leave. Officer Tsao readily admits that 90 percent of their visa problems are related to overstaying and "most people overstay ... because they misunderstood the information on their visa ..." People misunderstand because it is confusing.
Furthermore, Tsao later advises those who want to extend their visas to do so at least 15 days before they expire. But if the validity of the visa refers only to the last possible date of arrival, then he is confusing the issue even further by using the word visa. Most people think the word visa means the time given to remain in a country rather than the time until which you may enter. Therefore, if Tsao himself refers to the visa expiry date as being the last day that you may remain in the country, the words "Visitor visa, valid until" seem pretty conclusive, so why look further if you have apparently already been informed of the expiry date?
When this happened to me, I was treated rudely and told that the only solution was to immediately fly to Hong Kong. Meanwhile, we have the police openly admitting that the way their visa is written is causing confusion. Why then don't they change either the wording: "Permission to enter the country expires on ..." for example, or provide each visa issuing office with a short statement clarifying what the different dates mean. Or perhaps they just enjoy gloating over us "stupid" foreigners who constantly "disregard" the rules.
John and Viki van Deursen
Taipei
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS