Addressing common history
In the era of globalization, characterized by widespread access to the Internet and social media, swift rhythm of life, mass production and rapid consumption of the news, it is relatively easy to fall into the trap of following some simplified patterns while speaking about historical processes and events, especially if they took place in another part of the world.
The unfortunate fact is that today no one can feel safe from the danger of forming a personal opinion based upon a mixture of truthful and incorrect information circulating around us.
In this regard, we could not fail to notice the editorial and some emotional references to the tragic, but heroic story of the liberation of Europe by the Soviet soldiers in 1945, that go against well-known historical facts (“Prague’s mayor shows the way,” March 13, page 8).
First, it should be noted that the Prague Strategic Offensive of the Soviet Army was the last major military operation of World War II in Europe, bringing an end to the continued years-long Nazi occupation of the city and the country as a whole. The offensive was supported by the Czech Resistance and resulted in more than 53,000 Soviet and Allied soldiers killed and wounded in just five days.
World War II itself holds a very special — even sacred — place in the minds of many of the world’s nations. This is especially true for Russians, as our country lost more than 26 millions of its citizens from 1941 to 1945 while defending the right to exist and then playing a decisive role in liberating the occupied states of Europe.
The verdict of who represented the force of good and who represented the force of evil during that period was enshrined in the fundamental documents of the universally recognized and highly respected international legal body — the Nuremberg Tribunal held by the Allies in 1946.
This year we celebrate the 75th Anniversary of the end of World War II, and we truly believe that no one can distort the historical truth about our fathers and grandfathers, just because they cannot stand up for themselves.
Indeed, our common history is a highly sensitive and complex matter to be addressed in a careful and respectful way, so one should be extremely cautious in trying to make an assessment of fateful events that took place relatively recently, forged of blood and tears.
We sincerely hope that every person or organization capable of influencing others will be strictly devoted to maintaining this priority and refrain from mixing today’s politics with sensitive historical facts, flatly applying black and white labels just for the goal of a transient dramatic effect.
It is the only way to fight “fake news” and mitigate its harmful effect on society and international relations, thus promoting attentive and respectful attitude towards each other.
Sergey Petrov
Representative Office in Taipei for the Moscow-Taipei Coordination Commission on Economic and Cultural Cooperation
Re-evaluating mask ban
Like all non-Taiwanese living in Taiwan, I feel incredibly blessed to be living a relatively normal life as all our assumptions about economics and security come crumbling down in the US and elsewhere.
Thank you, Taiwan! I love you madly.
Today, as I was strolling through my local hypermarket, I was shocked to see an entire rack of 3M N95 respirator masks, the shortage of which is causing doctors, nurses and other key people around the world to face a greatly heightened risk of COVID-19 infection.
I bought a few and thought it was strange that no other shoppers seemed interested in them. They cost too much, I was told (NT$139, about US$4.60 US).
Clearly, an N95 respirator is overkill for ordinary Taiwanese these days.
However, we still cannot buy and ship them to our friends and loved ones abroad. I appreciate all that Taiwan’s strict policies have accomplished so far, but these particular masks are needed far more in other countries right now. The total ban on shipping masks abroad should be immediately re-evaluated on humanitarian grounds. Taiwan itself should not become guilty of hoarding.
[Editor’s note: From April 9, people are to be allowed to mail up to 30 masks to family members abroad.]
Peter Dearman
New Taipei City
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)