Barking up the wrong tree
The speech entitled "A strong and moderate Taiwan" delivered by US Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Thomas Christensen to the US-Taiwan Business Council Defense Industry Conference at Annapolis, Maryland, on Tuesday was unusual diplomatic posturing that serves the purpose of appeasing China's communist rulers but does nothing to advance the objective of securing long-term peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It does not take a rocket scientist to know that the root of cross-strait tension is the inability of China's communist rulers to respect the will of people both inside and outside China's borders. With the ever-increasing Chinese military build up and the US' growing objection to overseas military intervention, the notion that the US is indefinitely capable of or willing to maintain tranquility across the Taiwan Strait is simply a myth.
The US' policy needs to focus steadfastly on transforming China into a stakeholder that is confident enough to negotiate with Taiwan on an equal footing. To do otherwise, such as the ill-conceived "frontal attack" on a democratically elected president of Taiwan, will do nothing but leave China's pledge of a "peaceful rise" sounding hollow and deceitful.
Lee Tun-Hou
Boston, Massachusetts
The IOC should wake up
When police in Beijing prevented the wife of an imprisoned Chinese social activist from going to the Philippines to receive a prestigious international humanitarian award on behalf of her husband, the international Olympic community should have been outraged by this brazen Soviet-style thuggery. And yet barely a peep was heard around the world. Even the Magsaysay Foundation, a private organization, refused to criticize China publicly.
What is going on here? In the run-up to next year's Olympics in China, the Chinese government forcibly prevents a Chinese citizen from traveling to a foreign country to receive a humanitarian leadership award for her imprisoned husband -- a 35-year-old blind man who is behind bars for unmasking abuses such as forced sterilizations and women being made to have abortions eight months into their pregnancy -- and the international Olympic community behaves as if nothing happened. Where is the world's conscience today?
Yuan Weijing (袁偉靜) is the wife of Chen Guangcheng (陳光誠), and she should be free to travel anywhere in the world. She has a valid passport and a visa from the Philippine government. What China did to her is immoral, unconscionable.
Why did the International Olympic Committee (IOC) give next year's Games to China if this same nation is going to make a mockery of the concepts of freedom and justice and morality? It's not as if the IOC wasn't warned.
This incident should really serve as proof that China does not deserve to host the Olympics. It's time to call China on the carpet and stop all preparations for the Olympics. A country that does not allow the wife of a jailed man to travel abroad to pick up an international award for her husband is a country that does not deserve to host the Olympics. It's that simple. Is an international boycott gaining steam now? Maybe.
When will the international community wake up to the very "un-Olympic" spirit of the current Chinese communist regime?
If China can prevent one of its own citizens from going overseas to pick up an international leadership award without any rational explanation, then how can the members of the IOC in all good conscience continue to prepare for next year's Games in Beijing? What China did to Yuan's wife is an outrage, or should be.
After this incident, the IOC really owes the world an explanation concerning why it continues to play into China's hands.
Dan Bloom
Chiayi";
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS