The establishment of national parks has long been a matter of controversy between the government, Aboriginals and non-Aboriginal society. The government always justifies its actions by advocating the ideology of conservation and natural resource management. However, the creation of national parks usually causes harm to local Aboriginal communities by the expropriation of their traditional lands and prohibitions on their traditions, practices and customs.
Certainly, in its deeds and in the legislation it has introduced, the government has long recognized the importance of conservation. But, over the past 10 years, the cultural harm resulting from the government's policy of creating national parks has been a matter of public debate. It has been proven from an ecological perspective that most natural environments on the Earth's surface, which are not occupied and inhabited by indigenous communities, have been depleted and destroyed over the past several centuries. The ecosystem has been preserved only within traditional Aboriginal areas.
Because many traditional and indigenous societies live so close to nature, they have gained exceptional insights into how best to preserve and sustainably use the world's invaluable biological resources. For this reason increasing weight has been attached to the input of Aboriginal peoples in matters of environmental protection. This has lent some impetus to the idea of co-management of resources.
Aboriginal peoples have historically been excluded from any meaningful input into how, where, when and why resource development occurs on their traditional territory. This exclusion has had a significant, negative economic and social impact on Aboriginal communities. The reasons for advocating Aboriginal participation in the management and development of their traditional territories and surrounding resources, are compelling and have much to do with the fundamental value of maintaining the social validity of Aboriginal communities, so inextricably and historically tied to the land.
For many Aboriginal communities, subsistence practices such as hunting, fishing and trapping on traditional territories relate more to issues of culture, lifestyle and identity than to questions of economy, although economic considerations cannot be minimized.
Around the world, community involvement in conserving the natural habitat, wildlife and bio-diversity is becoming the prefer-red method of conservation, marking a shift away from the top-down approach that has characterized such efforts in the last few decades. But there are still important roles for government agencies, such as the establishment of a basic legal framework and management of the overall ecosystem.
In the process of establishing a legal framework, there are further concerns that need to be addressed by government -- whether there has been as little infringement as possible in order to effect the desired result and whether the Aboriginal group in question has been consulted with respect to the conservation measures being implemented.
The realization of the co-management agreement is usually carried out by way of negotiation and reconciliation among interested parties. Fundamentally, co-management implies that each participant at the negotiating table has equal rights of participation and these can then be formally institutionalized in the co-management process.
This situation, unfortunately, is not possible under the present circumstances in Taiwan. In fact, unless a drastic change occurs within the relationship between Aboriginal people and the government, co-management will remain simply an empty promise.
Tsai Chih-wei is a post-graduate fellow at the James E. Rogers College of Law of the University of Arizona.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
RSS