As far as political sentiment and support for Taiwan go, I am fully in accord with Jerome Keating ("China must learn from Taiwan's democracy," May 9, page 8). However, it seems to me he ignores some of the realities in order to present an over-simplification unworthy of him or the situation.
First, his constant use of "Taiwan versus China" rhetoric would cause an uninformed reader to believe that this was a united nation struggling against a foreign oppressor. Of course Taiwan is not at all united, as the recent visits of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and his People First Party counterpart James Soong (宋楚瑜) show.
These men are patently willing to become part of China, as are their people. They are self-evidently not democrats, tainted as they are by their collaboration with the former dictatorship, and it must be assumed that those who follow in their train would similarly "use" rather than "practice" democracy. Is this what they have to teach China? Democratic advances have been made by a minority of KMT members and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and I wish China would learn from them, but this is not the whole story.
As for the "rule of law," regulations about motorcycle helmets and garbage disposal are obeyed because they are enforced. Unenforced laws are not obeyed, in any country, and there are plenty of unenforced laws in Taiwan. Helmet regulations? How about traffic regulations? Canvass many of the Filipino, Thai and Indonesian indentured laborers and ask them what they think of the rule of law in regard to their contracts and human rights. Is this what we are to teach China? Keating's is a very selectively constructed Taiwan.
I think Taiwan is an amazing country which has done very well in advancing democracy, human rights and the rule of law, but let's balance propaganda with reality. I should have thought that someone with the undoubted intelligence, experience and knowledge of Keating might present us with something more analytical, balanced and profound than a Friday-night pub rant.
Rowan Hunter
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS