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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS