President without a country
In a recent speech, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that Taiwan and China do not have a nation-to-nation relationship, but rather a special relationship. In saying so, Ma has converted himself into a president without a country — a president in exile — and stripped all Taiwanese of their nationality.
Taiwan and China had a special nation-to-nation relationship under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and were separate countries on either side of the Taiwan Strait under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Chen let Taiwanese carry passports with the name Taiwan in parentheses so that Taiwanese would not be mistaken for Chinese.
Ma is proud of his “non-nation-to-nation relationship” slogan, indicating that peace could be maintained with such a relationship. Such a slogan is equivalent to a white flag.
The truth is that, under Ma, Taiwan has been under increased military, economic and political threat for more than three years. The modernization of the missiles aimed at Taiwan, implementation of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement as a domestic agreement and intentional mislabeling of Taiwan as “Taiwan, China” are just a few examples of these threats.
Ma has also indicated that food safety is more important than the independence/unification issue and that Taiwan is influencing China.
As president, it is Ma’s responsibility to handle all national issues positively. Taiwanese are more concerned about their own security and identity than influencing China.
A president without a country is Ma’s own choice, but Ma will be held accountable by history for letting Taiwanese lose their nationality, dignity, security and safety.
CHARLES HONG
Columbus, Ohio
Heads buried in the sand
I enjoyed reading the recent article in which US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairperson of the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, outlined her plans to hold hearings on the US’ relationship with Taiwan (“US lawmaker warns China on Taiwan,” June 13, page 1).
In doing so, the lawmaker observed that John Copper, Robert Sutter and others (including myself) have been correct to argue that US support for Taiwan has eroded, while China’s power and clout in the global community continues to accelerate.
In fact, I find it illuminating that she quoted Robert Sutter directly when saying she was “increasingly troubled about recent trends in US-Taiwan relations, trends which suggest, as one academic writes; ‘a marked decline in US support for the island’s freedom of action.’”
As it happens, Sutter and others were criticized in the May/June issue of the Taiwan Communique, which is edited by Gerrit van der Wees, for stating the obvious.
That is why on May 16, I was astonished to read van der Wees’ article that attacked John Copper for weaving “a tale of misconstructions and outright falsehoods” because he dared to make similar observations in your paper (“US will continue to support Taiwan,” May 16, page 8 and “Could US policy abandon Taiwan?” May 11, page 8).
The attack on Copper prompted me to write my first letter to your paper while I was sitting in the lounge of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport waiting for a flight to Taipei.
The letter called on all of the “Taiwan-centric” analysts to take off their “rose-colored glasses” and “wake up and smell the coffee” (Letters, May 30, page 8).
Despite the hate-mail I received from several Americans living in Taiwan, I will now repeat that call because the first step to correcting a problem is to admit that the problem exists. I fully realize that it is difficult to accept the fact that the world is changing, and some do not always like those changes.
However, as Ros-Lehtinen observed, Taiwan is being “marginalized” (her expression) by the US.
Therefore, it might prove to be wise policy to try to do something about it rather than bury our heads in the sand and pretend it is not happening or viciously attack those who believe that problems do indeed exist.
DENNIS HICKEY
Springfield, Missouri
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
To The Honorable Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜): We would like to extend our sincerest regards to you for representing Taiwan at the inauguration of US President Donald Trump on Monday. The Taiwanese-American community was delighted to see that Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan speaker not only received an invitation to attend the event, but successfully made the trip to the US. We sincerely hope that you took this rare opportunity to share Taiwan’s achievements in freedom, democracy and economic development with delegations from other countries. In recent years, Taiwan’s economic growth and world-leading technology industry have been a source of pride for Taiwanese-Americans.
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS