‘Healthy, together’
In a crescendo of invectives, Tzou Jiing-wen (鄒景雯) unfairly criticizes the country I am proud to represent in Taiwan (“Italy’s ignorance must be checked,” March 6, page 8).
Tzou faults Italy for adopting measures, such as the reduction of flights and the restriction of travelers from COVID-19 affected areas, that Taiwan itself has adopted. While Tzou blames Italy’s alleged “hostility,” she forgets that as recently as June last year Italy granted Taiwanese passport holders a fast track through e-gates in Italian airports. Such privilege — currently enjoyed by only eight jurisdictions — was never put in doubt by Italy.
Equally, Italy always abstained from advising against traveling to Taiwan, even when Taiwan enjoyed a clear initial advantage in the grim tally of COVID-19 cases.
Italy’s intention, as alleged by Tzou, “to inconvenience the Taiwanese” ignores the fact that COVID-19 landed at Italy’s doorstep as it has at Taiwan’s and that both sides have been doing their best to deal with the situation.
Unlike Taiwan, Italy is not an island. Its belonging to a vast integrated and multinational area such as the EU, larger economic clout and status as a major world tourism destination infinitely complicate the containment efforts of the virus that are being carried out by Italian authorities.
Describing the ongoing mobilization efforts made at all levels by Italy’s authorities and the entire Italian nation through the dismissive words used by the article’s author is crude and insensitive.
Moreover, Tzou’s call for “countermeasures” in the economic and trade spheres is ill-advised and runs counter to both sides’ interest to avoid an unnecessary spill-out effect of decisions concerning health into the trade domain.
In light of Italy’s membership in the EU, trade-related Taiwanese reactions multilateralize any bilateral temporary dispute. This risks damaging Taiwan’s wider interests.
Italy and Taiwan enjoy a growing and mutually beneficial trade relationship that it is in both sides’ interest to preserve and nurture. If something has to be checked it is not Italy’s ignorance, but rather the misleading advice offered by Tzou. The current extraordinary times we are all facing require more levelheaded and deft reasoning than was advocated in her article.
I find in the slogan “Italy and Taiwan: healthy, together” put forward by my office and endorsed by Taiwan’s authorities a more apt way forward. We should stress what unites and not what — temporarily — divides.
I am confident that this more constructive and compassionate spirit will find wider resonance in Taiwan than Tzou’s words.
Davide Giglio,
Italian representative to Taiwan
Italian Economic, Trade and Cultural Promotion Office
Academia Sinica’s name
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Fan Yun (范雲) recently questioned the English name of Academia Sinica, a title that could mislead people into thinking it is a Chinese institution (“Virus outbreak: Academia Sinica rejects China’s virus reagent claim,” March 10, page 1).
She suggested that it be named Academia Taiwanica instead, to clarify its status as Taiwanese. In response to this suggestion, Hugo Tseng (曾泰元), an associate professor in Soochow University’s Department of English Language and Literature, submitted an article to the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) counseling caution on any decision to change the English name.
The name Academia Sinica is Latin, and means “Chinese academy.” The “sinica” part could, indeed, lead people to believe, incorrectly, that it is a Chinese institution, and connect it with the country internationally recognized as the People’s Republic of China.
However, Tseng said that this misinterpretation presupposes that the reader is an academic with sufficiently good English, coupled with a certain degree of understanding of Latin.
Tseng makes an interesting point, but one that shows why the name does require “rectification.”
Given the sheer amount and diversity of academic research and published papers internationally, the majority of people would have little interest in, or call to read, studies by Academica Sinica, and as such, very few would be in danger of being misled by its name.
Only those who come into contact with the findings of Academia Sinica studies, and who have “sufficiently good English, coupled with a certain degree of understanding of Latin,” might mistakenly believe the “sinica” refers to the country China.
Second, the contention that the name might “make people mistakenly believe” this to be the case is getting things round the wrong way. Since it is Academia Sinica that uses that name to refer to itself, where exactly does the misunderstanding come from?
On the one hand, many of the institute’s research findings are published in Western academic circles under the name of Academia Sinica, and the institute’s exemplary reputation was hard-won. This is something Academia Sinica really needs to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to change its name.
On the other, the hard-won reputation of Academia Sinica is unfortunate in that, to the many international academics with “sufficiently good English, coupled with a certain degree of understanding of Latin,” this reputation is linked with the word “sinica,” which is in turn linked with China.
If the name is not “rectified” at this point, the hard work of academia in Taiwan will continue to be attributed to someone else.
Whether the name is to be changed or not needs to be carefully weighed up, putting aside for the moment all of the historical baggage behind the issue.
TACO
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