On July 1, after a session that lasted more than 11 hours, the UN General Assembly voted unanimously to create a new entity combining four of the original administrative units dealing with women’s affairs. The new entity has been given the title UN Women, appended with “UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.” It will be run by UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro, a woman and No. 3 in the UN chain of command.
At the same time, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) decided to focus on gender equality and the empowerment of women this year. On July 2, after a week of intensive discussions, it was declared that DESA would concentrate on improving women’s access to official economic systems and their participation in major decision-making, putting an end to violence against women, increasing education opportunities, stamping out illiteracy, improving women’s health, ending sexual discrimination and increasing access to microcredit. UN Economic and Social Council president Hamidon Ali said that gender equality aids economic growth.
The UN has always been a major platform for the women’s movement, advocating gender equality right from its inception by establishing the Division for the Advancement of Women in 1946. The influence of this division has benefited greatly from the collective momentum provided by women’s groups around the world, and with the increase in its budget from the original US$200 million to US$500 million, it can now more effectively create and influence policies on women’s issues. This is not only cause for celebration, it might also provide the impetus for change, as some women’s groups in Taiwan have sought to replace the word “women” with “gender,” and even publicly criticized the use of the terms “men/women” or “both sexes” as reactionary.
The 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing featured the new policy of “gender mainstreaming,” a politically correct term to describe ways of dealing with factors contributing to social inequalities. This extended the definition of “gender” to include polygender identities, beyond the conventional polar concepts of male and female. The problem is that, just like age, gender is an abstract concept and an arbitrary method of classification. Furthermore, the term itself does not actually have any inherent meaning and is therefore open to subjective interpretation, which means that it can be manipulated to further different agendas.
Gender is simply an arbitrary basis for grouping people for the purpose of allocating rights and duties, for which there is no corresponding basis in reality. Consequently, in official UN and EU documents and statistical information, the terms “gender,” “sex” and “male/female” are often interchangeable and employed simultaneously. In both theory and practice, then, the terms “gender” and “women” can coexist and be used to describe each other. The fundamental goal of gender equality is the abolition of stereotypical male and female roles, an equitable division of labor and the resolution of issues surrounding transgender identities and forms of expression.
One of US President Barack Obama’s earliest appointments was to make Melanne Verveer the first US Ambassador-at-large for Global Women’s Issues. He also set up the White House Council on Women and Girls. Now that the UN has further demonstrated its resolve to raise the status of women’s institutions, reflecting the importance of women’s affairs and policies in contemporary global politics, one can only hope that the government in Taiwan and local women’s groups will take another look at women’s affairs.
Ku Yenlin is the chairperson of the Senior Citizen Leaders Association.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that