Your report that? "US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said that the bid to enter the world body under the name `Taiwan' would be a move to change the `status quo'" ("Referendum a mistake, US official says", Aug. 29, page 1] sent me to the CIA World Factbook Web site (www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/), which closely reflects the political nuances of US international nomenclature. There I found Taiwan, out of the alphabetical order of countries, second from the bottom of the list.
Here is a relevant extract:
Country name:
conventional long form: none
conventional short form: Taiwan
In other words, the US does not even list?"Republic of China" (which suggests Chineseness)? as a possible name for your country (though we do list "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" for North Korea, which we do not recognize diplomatically). Instead, for decades we have insisted on "Taiwan" exclusively, which indicates to me that use of that name has long been integral to the "status quo."
Given this fact, I would like to respectfully ask the US deputy secretary of state to suggest the appropriate name to be used in your UN application. Or perhaps the problem is not the name, but rather the possibility that your 23 million people might be represented there?
Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of
International Relations
University of Pennsylvania
Negroponte seems to be offering US support for democracy, prosperity and fraternity in return for Taiwan giving up its demand for freedom and independence.
If the US State Department is so beholden to China that it continues to back Taiwan into that dismal corner and continues to assist China in suppressing Taiwan in everything from healthcare to wildlife, the Taiwanese will surely be driven to give the same answer as Patrick Henry in 1775: "Give me liberty or give me death."
As US President George W. Bush frequently reminds us, freedom and democracy are indivisible and universal values that cannot be parsed, sequenced, prioritized or put on hold. Is the US State Department so busy cutting deals around the world that it has forgotten its own mission? Or is its "intelligence" on cross-strait relations on a par with its intelligence on Iraq?
John Pickles
Taipei
The referendum to join the UN as "Taiwan" set off another firestorm in Taiwan-US relations with Negroponte accusing Taiwan of seeking to alter the "status quo." The fact that he said this in an interview broadcast on Chinese media is even more unnerving.
We all know that the "status quo" favors China and threatens Taiwan, yet US officials continue to drive this point in an era when China is expanding and modernizing its military, openly conducting cyber warfare and selling weapons to rogue states.
Taiwanese have lived under the shadow of those infamous two words for too long and have started to realize that perhaps the "status quo" does need to be redefined; not by politicians in Washington, not by the communists in Beijing, but by the good people of Taiwan.
If countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba are allowed to become UN members, what reasonable argument is there to deny the Taiwanese, who enjoy a vibrant economy and democracy, the right to join the organization?
Perhaps the "status quo" between Taiwan and the US needs to be re-evaluated as well.
Eugene Liu
Atlanta, Georgia
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