Regarding Bonnie Glaser's article ("Is a Chen-Hu Summit Desirable?" June 16, page 8), it is for the most part an uninspired rehash of the aspirations of business leaders on all sides to see an increase in commerce between Taiwan and China as so-called "initial steps" to "build trust" as a prelude to some resolution of the cross-strait situation.
Glaser suggests promoting economic ties as a means of defusing tensions. Of course, from a unificationist's standpoint, that is a good strategy. In fact, it is the preferred method of ensuring unification, as further entangling economic ties will make independence down the road that much more difficult, if not impossible.
The trouble with Glaser's approach, and the approach of a myriad other dreamers who hope earnestly for Taiwan to simply disappear into communist China's bosom, ending cross-strait tensions, and opening the way for exploitation without limit of China's vast untapped markets, is that the approach assumes the final solution will be unification.
That, of course, is dead wrong. No negotiation can ever take place in good faith if one party says "I won't talk to you unless you agree to my position in advance." That is, and has been communist China's position regarding talking to President Chen Shui-bian (
Communist dictatorships don't take chances on negotiations (or elections, or much else). Hong Kong is a good example. Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang (
To ensure victory in Tibet, China kidnapped the Panchen Lama, and replaced him with a communist puppet. To assure itself of support in countering Taiwan independence (including decidedly anti-democratic proclamations from French President Jacques Chirac), China has used economic blackmail against just about every country on earth, including the US. This being the case, Hu will never sit down with Chen in an unscripted discussion or negotiation. Only when the cards are in its favor, and China is assured of Taiwan's capture, will that happen.
As for Glaser's concluding comments, they are a despicable example of the lengths to which CSIS will go to promote China, despite it being a communist dictatorship. In her conclusion, Glaser suggests the US would love to see Taiwan unify with China, and that Washington "would welcome the elimination of the danger of a war in which it is likely to be involved, and in which US interests would almost certainly be adversely affected." This suggestion is wishful and abhorrent thinking, and is decidedly not Washington's current (or historical) thinking.
Glaser blithely expresses her high hopes for the demise of freedom for 23 million Taiwanese (there is no other possible outcome from "unification," to wit Hong Kong's farcical attempt at so-called "democracy"), as if she were describing ordering a salad.
I suggest that she should live as a communist for a while before suggesting that an entire nation, its history, culture, language, economy, democracy and children surrender to the single most brutal communist dictatorship in human history. Her views, and the views of CSIS, do not represent the majority view in the US, in particular the views of this writer.
I deplore the notion that my country would be willing to sacrifice Taiwan for a good night's sleep. That Glaser casually suggests this is true, and moreover, desirable, is morally reprehensible and indefensible.
Lee Long-hwa
United States
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS