Although President Chen Shui-bian's (
Yesterday, Zhang Mingqing (
China actually obtained a copy of the speech via the US and rushed to announce its position prior to Chen's inauguration. China's two reactions in a week indicate it is gravely concerned with the international response to the speech.
Chen had set goals: to calm the electorate at home, to relieve the anxious US and the international community, and to deprive China of any excuse to use force against Taiwan.
Some people in Taiwan criticized Chen for con-ceding too much regarding the cross-strait relationship in his speech, as he promised that changes to the Constitution would not touch on issues of the country's national flag, title or sovereignty. He also approached the topic of constitutional reform in terms of "re-engineering" rather than as writing a new Constitution. Despite this complaint, the speech was well-received by the public.
Chen's inauguration speech was better received by the international community. It was acclaimed as "responsible and constructive" by the US State Department and viewed positively by other governments. Compared with the international response to Chen's speech, Beijing's comment appears jarring. Its failure to influence international opinion forced it to make another statement.
Yet as the US said on May 17, China's military threat is unnecessary. What Zhang said over the weekend was a mere reiteration of intimidation, which was neither positive nor constructive for cross-strait dialogue. China's decision to make the second statement was simply another mistake.
As Taiwan offers the olive branch of peace and China rattles its saber, the international community can easily tell which side shows flexibility and aspirations for peace, and which side is the troublemaker and source of cross-strait tension. Although power and influence define a country's role in the global arena, the capacity to differentiate right and wrong cannot be ignored. It is easy to tell who is right and who is wrong in the cross-strait relationship from the statements of all sides.
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
“Can you tell me where the time and motivation will come from to get students to improve their English proficiency in four years of university?” The teacher’s question — not accusatory, just slightly exasperated — was directed at the panelists at the end of a recent conference on English language learning at Taiwanese universities. Perhaps thankfully for the professors on stage, her question was too big for the five minutes remaining. However, it hung over the venue like an ominous cloud on an otherwise sunny-skies day of research into English as a medium of instruction and the government’s Bilingual Nation 2030
RSS