A reader complained some days ago that he opened this newspaper to read something pungent editorially about the war on Iraq and was most disappointed to find wishy-washy fence-sitting "lets all hope it is over as soon as possible" platitudes instead. Well, you can't please everyone. But given the lack of local news of substance on which to comment, we thought we might, just for once, address our critics.
Our staff is comprised of people from at least six different nations, and at least half of them are Westerners. It would be interesting to say that debate over the war has raged in our newsroom, but that would not be the case: almost everyone is against it, the US citizens, by the way, most of all. But this is on a personal level. What this newspaper has to think about is not the ideals or prejudices of its own editorial staff but the specific interests of Taiwan in this conflict.
Let us then start with the basics. Taiwan is threatened by Chinese irredentism. It is difficult for the country to defend itself without outside help, and this includes the provision of weapons that Taiwan cannot develop itself and practical military help in the event of an attack. The only country which is likely to come to Taiwan's aid in the event of an attack by China is the US. These are the plain facts, wherever you might stand on the Iraq war or any other of the great geo-political questions of our time. Taiwan cannot stand alone against the huge threat across the Taiwan Strait. There is only one country that is prepared to give it even the weakest of security commitments. That is the US.
Fashionable criticisms of US unilateralism are, therefore, of no interest to Taiwan. Here, the kind of multilateralism espoused in Europe means no more than a large economic area incapable of projecting military power, so in thrall to China's business opportunities that none of its member nations dare grant President Chen Shui-bian (
Closer to Taiwan's concerns perhaps is the talk of the US' trashing of international law in pursuing its attack on Iraq. After all, isn't Taiwan's claim to be treated in the world as the nation it plainly is based on the right of self-determination granted by the UN Charter? Anything that undermines the UN and its charter, some argue, should therefore be viewed as detrimental to Taiwan. The short answer to this is that if the UN lived up to its ideals Taiwan would be a member; that it isn't raises obvious questions about the UN.
So let us be blunt about Taiwan's position. Whatever its chattering classes, which of course include ourselves, might think privately about the war in Iraq, those who want to see this island maintain its independence -- who tend to be of a "liberal internationalist" rather than Chinese nationalist persuasion -- would be ill-advised to bite the hand that defends them.
There are legitimate worries that might be discussed. If the war or its aftermath go badly or simply become too expensive, the US might lose its taste for intervention leaving Taiwan out on a limb. There will be a world after US President George W. Bush leaves office. Whether it is one in which the American people and their government continue to pursue the values that this president -- once ironically thought to be ideology-free -- seek to promote, or one in which the Bush adventure is regarded as a regrettable aberration not to be repeated, is something that will have huge repercussions on Taiwan. That is something we might usefully think about. On the war itself, as Wittgenstein said: "when one cannot speak, one must be silent."
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS