Because of the limited size of Nauru's international airport, some sections of the Taiwanese media were unable to accompany President Chen Shui-bian (
Reporters from a certain cable TV station reportedly decided to display their dissatisfaction by boycotting the whole trip. This kind of righteous indignation is fair enough, but I am more interested in the insight this episode provides on the sorry state of Taiwan's diplomatic affairs.
Why is it that Taiwan is so diplomatically limited that we have to treasure a presidential visit to a country where only two aircraft can land at the national airport at any given time?
Why is it so difficult for Taiwan to participate in the international community?
The reason is that the Republic of China (ROC) withdrew from the UN 35 years ago this Oct. 26. As a result of this decision, our head of state must deal with Chinese pressure every time he makes an international visit; the WHO is bullied by China; the US is the only nation that dares sell Taiwan arms; and Taiwan has to endure humiliation by APEC.
I have never seen a well balanced report of this situation in the Taiwanese media. In the past, the propaganda machine of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government's educational system taught us that, to save face, the government had no choice but to walk out of the UN -- that the world body was not big enough to hold both the People's Republic of China and the ROC.
Historical documents, however, show that the dictator Chiang Kai-shek (
In 1970, the year before the ROC withdrew from the UN, then US president Richard Nixon promised in a meeting with then premier Yan Chia-kan (
Even French president Charles de Gaulle sent a telegram to Chiang urging him not to make a rash decision to leave the world body.
To save face, Chiang said that he'd rather stand on principle than accept humiliation, preferring to instead turn Taiwan into an orphan in the international community. Abandoned, oppressed and threatened by Chinese missiles, the Taiwanese people are now constantly in crisis.
In their eagerness to punish Chen for his family's perceived wrongdoings, many academics have lately been talking about transitional justice. As I see it, true transitional justice entails settling past injustices. Yet in the current debate, the buck surprisingly stops at former president Lee Teng-hui (
No one has the courage to challenge the institutional violence applied by Chiang. Despite Chiang's betrayal of the nation, even a change to the name of an airport bearing his name is today enough to set off a nationwide argument.
The fact that Chiang was a dictator is irrefutable, and changing the name of the airport in Taoyuan would be in keeping with the spirit of transitional justice.
Why don't I hear the same people who have been singing the praises of transitional justice come out in support of this change?
Tien Chiu-chin is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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