While well meaning, Richard Halloran's article ("Time to conclude Japan's string of apologies for World War II," Oct 7, page 9) calling for a final listing of all Japan's apologies to East Asian victims of its aggression during WWII contains a glaring factual error and also a logical misstep.
He states that the emperor of Japan is the only one with the moral and constitutional authority to speak for all Japanese people. To make this statement displays ignorance of basic political facts in Japan.
The individual who speaks for all Japanese is the prime minister, chosen through democratic means in a democratic society.
The constitution clearly states that the emperor is merely the "symbol" of the people. Why call for the current emperor to speak for all Japanese precisely when you are arguing for apologies for the actions of a political system of the past, one of the most salient characteristics of which was that the emperor was the constitutional sovereign, a decidedly non-democratic arrangement?
Halloran's argument, taken on its own terms, makes no logical sense. And it makes no legal sense, either. The elected government of Japan speaks for the Japanese, not the emperor, just as in Britain and the US and every other democracy around the world.
Scott O'Bryan
Assistant Professor of History, Indiana University,
Indiana, USA
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS