Pope’s deafening silence
It is of interest to me that after the arrest of Cardinal Joseph Zen (陳日君), the White House called for his immediate release. Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, said the arrest was “yet another outrageous example of how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is hell-bent on turning Hong Kong into a police state.”
Human rights activists spoke up to defend the cardinal, who, although released on bail, faces the prospect of spending his last years in a prison.
What did we hear from the Vatican? This: “The Holy See has learned with concern the news of the arrest of Cardinal Zen and is following the development of the situation with extreme attention.”
Even that raises the question: How much “concern”? In 2020, Cardinal Zen went to Rome to tell Pope Francis how worried he was about the Vatican’s 2018 pact with Beijing, which gives the CCP the power to appoint Catholic bishops. The pope refused to see him because the Vatican has remained committed to strengthening relations with Beijing.
I believe this commitment has led the pope to sacrifice truth for profit, even to the point of remaining silent on the genocidal campaign against the Uihgurs of Xinjiang, which has seen 1 million Muslim Uighurs forced into concentration camps, and women there to a genocidal program of forced abortions.
The pope even remains silent when members of his flock are being arrested and tortured while their churches are either demolished or stage communist services in which hymns are sung to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
For a pope who likes to say so much about injustice, it is time for him to realize that it is a bad deal for Rome, and for Chinese Catholics.
Reverend Graham Smith
Diocese of Brentwood,
England
Truth on the Internet
The Taipei Times’ editorial “Punching a hole in China’s firewall” (May 18, page 8) brings to light the one positive — or negative — development in our communication abilities: the evolution of communication methods that can either benefit or harm society.
Word-of-mouth was once the prevailing method of communicating, keeping citizens informed of current events. Then came printed publications and, suddenly, information became even more accessible, albeit slightly less reliable thanks to the time lag required for actual publication. Radio and television came next, and access to information became a global reality.
Since the late 20th century, the Internet has radically altered access to information, with virtually instantaneous transmission of fact and fiction, with no “gatekeepers” to verify accuracy or veracity.
Governments that had relied on identifying and controlling the flow of information found themselves scrambling to regain control of their citizens’ access to information.
Social media has proven to be a fly in the ointment for those governments. Shutting down an “offending” Web site almost immediately guarantees the birth of at least one more site and escalation of efforts to provide information to a concerned public.
China, Russia and countless other repressive governments are scrambling to regain control, and falling farther and farther behind in the process. I find the constant, daily barrage of true and false information annoying, but I applaud those who are dedicated to ensuring that truth and fact are available to those who wish to be informed and aware.
Kirk Hazlett
Adjunct professor,
University of Tampa,
Florida
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing