On May 14, an 18-year-old white American man gunned down people in a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, killing 10, eight of whom were black.
The perpetrator, a white supremacist, selected an area he knew black people gathered in.
The following day, David Wenwei Chou (周文偉), a 68-year-old Taiwanese-born Chinese-American pro-unification nationalist extremist entered a luncheon for Irvine Taiwanese Presbyterian Church in southern California, sealing the entrance with superglue and chains to make sure the Taiwanese congregation would have no means of escape, and began shooting, intent on killing the people trapped inside.
On Tuesday last week, US President Joe Biden, addressing the Buffalo terrorist attack, vowed to tackle racial hatred in the country, to defeat white supremacism and to safeguard the US national spirit of coexistence and mutual respect for all races.
It is not only white supremacist terrorists and organizations that should be punished according to the law; this principle should extend also to pro-unification extremist terrorists and groups that have become increasingly vocal in the past few years.
What form of hatred would make a person living in a country like the US, where people enjoy more freedoms than anywhere else in the world, murder in cold blood people of other races or with different political opinions to their own?
What kind of hatred would drive somebody to conduct an indiscriminate massacre in a church that exists to spread love to the community?
What level of courage does it take to make a doctor, in front of his 92-year-old mother, throw himself at the assailant, blocking with his own body the bullets fired out of hatred, and sacrificing his life to save that of the other parishioners?
In the sanctity of the church, the evil of hate and the heroism of the doctor exemplified the struggle between hatred and compassion.
In a free country such as the US, all political viewpoints must be respected. Liberal beliefs and values are the founding principles of the nation, and nobody has the right to commit violence against others simply because they happen to disagree with them.
Every person in the US should be treated equally, no matter their race or creed, be they white, black, or Chinese or Taiwanese-American, and nobody has the right to commit violence against someone belonging to another group.
Any terrorist act that threatens freedom and equality should be dealt with according to the law. Terrorist groups should be investigated and any organization that disseminates terrorist ideas should be banned.
One might argue that perhaps the 18-year-old, because he was young and did not know better, allowed himself to be indoctrinated by white supremacist groups; a 68-year-old man, incited by pro-Chinese nationalist, pro-unification supremacist groups, to perpetrate indiscriminate murder in their cause, is something else entirely.
US prosecutors and police should not be limiting their investigations to white supremacists and terrorist groups, they should be going after any individuals or organizations that incite hatred as a means to achieve their ends, and this includes the pro-unification groups.
In the same way, Taiwan’s judiciary, police and national security agencies should investigate pro-unification groups preaching hatred and violence, and get them under control, to make sure that this kind of terrorist activity does not happen in Taiwan.
Mike Chang is an accountant based in California.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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