Peace across the Strait
Stop your independence referendums and create peace is Steve Tsang’s (曾銳生) simplistic recipe for peace between Taiwan and China as published in this paper (“Now is the time to forge consensus,” June 20, page 8). According to Tsang’s standpoint, Taiwan will obtain peace by abandoning the fundamental of any democracy to hold referendums on “independence.”
He leaves the impression that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) should seek to create a “consensus in Taiwan” on this repressive idea, disregarding all serious studies showing that Taiwanese will refuse to surrender to such a proposal.
In addition, he ignores that Ma’s China-friendly policies seem to have contributed to his low popularity.
Tsang’s proposal resembles a Chinese proposal from 1982, known as “one country, two systems.” The starting point for this proposal was a message to Taiwan on Jan. 1, 1979, from China’s National People’s Congress.
This was further expanded on in September 1981 by a nine-point proposal, which offered Taiwan autonomy and the right to retain its own social system and military.
This offer, however, hasn’t found support among Taiwanese. Since 1993, 68 percent to 80 percent of Taiwanese have rejected it and recently more than 80 percent have said no to the “one country, two systems” proposal.
It is daunting that Tsang denegrates the 72 percent of Taiwanese who want independence by labeling them aggressive and pointing out that China does not wish to see the DPP’s “aggressively pro-independence leaders return to power.” China uses such labels for opponents of their claim to sovereignty over Taiwan. Ma only avoids being labeled as aggressive by saying what China wants to hear.
The main problem in the conflict is China. It is Beijing that makes unfounded claims to Taiwan despite the fact that Taiwan was only a province of the Qing dynasty for 10 years, from 1885 to 1895. It is China that needs to realize its indoctrinated nationalism is the source of continued tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
Democracy has a hard time when people such as Tsang consider its elimination a solution to the conflict between Taiwan and China. It is a naive illusion to have confidence in the survival of Taiwan’s democracy if it is a part of China.
DaFydd Fell has a much more progressive proposal and suggests a consensus-seeking conference where taiwanese discuss the future (“How to achieve political consensus,” June 28, page 8). A lasting peace between Taiwan and China will only come when the world listens to Taiwanese and releases them from China’s grip.
MICHAEL DANIELSEN
Chairman of Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen
Bringing soccer to Taiwan
The 2010 World Cup in South Africa will be remembered as the event that propelled the world’s favorite game into the consciousness of Taiwanese. The 2006 tournament in Germany passed with barely a mention in the media, but this year’s event has received extensive newspaper and TV coverage and engaged the public at a previously unimaginable level. We can expect to see interest in soccer continue to hold firm when the European domestic leagues get underway later in the year.
But amid all this excitement, one question still needs to be asked: When will Taiwan (competing as Chinese Taipei) ever be able to field a team that is even remotely competitive in the World Cup and the AFC Asian Cup qualifiers? Chinese Taipei has never managed to qualify for either competition despite participating since the 1970s, with one particular low point coming when Palestine recorded an 8-0 win in qualifiers for the 2006 World Cup.
The source of the problem can be traced to the sorry state of the domestic league administered by the Chinese Taipei Football Association (CTFA). Since the league was reformatted as the Intercity League last year, it has drawn most of its players from the nation’s sports universities with only a handful of poorly paid semi-professional players. Attendance is low and the playing standards even lower. Despite the recent wave of soccer fever, the fact remains that Taiwan does not have enough public interest (and therefore commercial backing) or playing talent to support a domestic league capable of producing players of international caliber.
Now is the time to give serious consideration to the idea of entering a Taiwanese team in the Chinese Super League. While the Super League is plagued with problems of its own, not least rampant corruption and match-fixing scandals, in terms of soccer ability it is still light years ahead of anything we have in Taiwan. Most, if not all, the players are professional with a number of journeyman players from overseas adding to the talent pool. Attendance averages over 13,000, way beyond CTFA’s stated (and highly improbable) goal of 3,000 per game for Intercity League fixtures.
If Taiwan were to enter a team, it is likely that the majority of the players would also represent the Chinese Taipei national team. This is doubly advantageous as the players would benefit from playing together regularly and resources from the club and national teams, such as training facilities and coaching staff, could be pooled.
Most importantly, the establishment of a professional Taiwanese soccer club will give hope to the thousands of young soccer players that there is a chance of making a living from the game. As things stand, it’s understandable that promising players drop out of the game when the rewards for persisting are so paltry.
The inevitable political questions will be raised, but there is a precedent for soccer teams from one national federation playing in the domestic league of another territory. In the UK, Welsh teams compete in the English league without forfeiting the right of Wales to play as an international team. The Football Association of Wales runs its own Welsh Football League, and I would envisage CTFA continuing to run a domestic Taiwan league. The Toronto Raptors have competed in the NBA without damaging the status of the Canadian national basketball team.
The time has come to look afresh at the way soccer is run in Taiwan, and we must discount no option, no matter how unpalatable it may first appear.
JOHN PHILLIPS
Taipei
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS