Large army not the answer
There are some 260,000 conscripts within the Taiwanese armed forces. Not only do most of these young men consider their military service to be a waste of time, but it means that the most able part of the population is lost to the economy during the most productive part of their lives. All that is gained in return is a large army of debatable value. However, the latest proposal to provide conscripts to the high-tech industry seems little better than forced labor.
Taiwan is an island nation -- it shares no borders with China -- any invasion from across the Strait must come by air or sea. Why then aren't Taiwan's limited resources concentrated on building up its air force and navy? History is full of examples of small island nations successfully defending themselves against continental powers with forces of well-equipped professionals. The only possible reason for maintaining such a large army is that some elements within the ministry of defense still dream of "re-taking the mainland."
History is also full of nations whose outmoded thought has consigned them to the rubbish bin.
Gilman Grundy
Miaoli
WTO status not a panacea
Your recent editorials "Reading between the lines" (July 7, p8) and "Taiwan isn't the same as Hong Kong" (July 7, p8) have addressed many intertwining issues of the predicament facing the Taiwan economy.
It is true that separate membership in the WTO does not afford the luxury of a sovereign recognition, but neither does the WTO framework give away the farm for establishing direct trading links with China. In truth, the WTO status is really a discernible firewall around Taiwan's limbo status and the noted commentaries on the Taiwan reality are beginning to better illuminate these hidden messages for exposing just exactly how the "one China" policy is not a political status reality. The idea that Taiwan is becoming a "Hong Kong SAR" because of some PRC direct links is ludicrous, and your enlightening commentaries have clearly noted that such direct links alone cannot establish that there is now a final resolution of the Taiwan Question for the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
If anything, being so unambiguously defined as a separate customs territory by the trade laws of nations is in itself a major international trade barrier to any Chinese political incursions. The internationally recognized basis of the trade membership status of Taiwan is as a separate territorial unit to the China mainland and this fact only further demarcates a WTO framework within the "one China" policy. Insightful editorials help a world of concerned readers to comprehend these "one China" policy nuances and to see a consistent subtext of the policy commissars revealed between the lines of the legal fine print of the "one China" policy: the Taiwan WTO status is not currently part of China. Not yet.
Jeff Geer
Las Vegas
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS