The year 2020 will go down in history. Certainly, if for nothing else, it will be remembered as the year of the COVID-19 pandemic and the continuing impact it has had on the world. All nations have had to deal with it; none escaped. As a virus, COVID-19 has known no bounds. It has no agenda or ideology; it champions no cause. There is no way to bully it, gaslight it or bargain with it. Impervious to any hype, posturing, propaganda or commands, it ignores such and simply attacks. All nations, big or small, are on a level playing field when facing it. They either handle it or grapple with the consequences. However, for Taiwan, China and the US, three nations that have had a complex triangular relationship since the end of World War II, there is more. For them, it will also be remembered as the year of new exposure and unmasking; it has proven to be a turning point in their relationships. As the source of the virus, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the most unmasked. At first, its leaders, in true authoritarian fashion, tried to hide its existence. Just as with SARS, they hoped to contain the damage before it would spread far and wide, and the virus would realize its danger. That failed. As COVID-19 spread, the next step was to try to shift the blame to its neighboring nations and hide the body count while punishing whistle-blowers. The true number of deaths in China is still unknown and will probably never be known. The PRC has published figures, but they are unreliable; the credibility of the PRC is gone. How could the most populous country in the world, where the virus originates and which has allowed it to spread, rank 82nd among all nations
Responding to recent tragedies on university campuses, the National Taiwan University (NTU) Student Association proposed an “accommodated study” system — a mechanism allowing students to apply for specially adapted course requirements and student guidance from specialists — and a university affairs meeting on Saturday last week passed a resolution adopting it. When students experience mental illness or have serious emotional trouble that affects their studies to the point of keeping them from completing their course requirements, the system would allow them, through an interview and evaluation by specialists, to be granted adapted requirements. These could include extended deadlines for handing in coursework or the permission to take a break halfway through an exam, thus giving students with mental illness equal study opportunities. The changes would greatly benefit the students. However, a society that has a poor understanding of mental illness, even stigmatizes it, complicates running such a system effectively without complementary measures. In clinical situations, we often encounter students with depression whose emotional troubles prevent them from studying as well as their classmates. Consequently, their professors and classmates look down on them, or regard them as peculiar. We also encounter students with suicidal ideation who are told to be more strong-willed, but this can hurt students even more by making them feel that they are not strong-willed enough. In view of this, the NTU Student Association, as well as proposing this “accommodated study” system to the university, could also link up with psychiatric services and specialist organizations such as the Mental Health Association in Taiwan to launch two campus awareness campaigns. The first campaign would help the campus learn about depression, and its purpose would be to destigmatize it. The campaign would tell everyone that people who are depressed have an illness in the brain that makes it difficult for them to regulate their emotions,
Is Trump going away soon? There is talk in the media about whether US President Donald Trump’s supporters will continue to side with him after the recent assault on the US Capitol by mobs of his most ardent (okay, “worst”) allies. That Trump urged these people on his now defunct Twitter account has led to charges of insurgency against the US government, and might end his presidency on a very humble note. Scores of his former supporters have walked out of the government, and I have seen not just a few ordinary US citizens who voted for him in 2016 now denounce him. Even the likes of senior US Cabinet members and a few US lawmakers have spoken out against Trump for his at best histrionics, and worse, revolutionary dissent. And so, people are asking: Now that Trump’s time is over, will virtually all of his followers desert him? I have news for concerned US citizens considering this: No, this will not be happening soon. I have witnessed such political leanings and outward agnosticism and attacks on the government since I was a child in the US. My own brother was one such objector. I can firmly say that these people are not going to change, such discord and disunity is in their blood. So make no mistake: Trump is not disappearing. We will soon see his book outlining his outrageous heterodoxy, and it will be a bestseller among his adherents. And in any case, if it is not to be Trump, there are plenty of others lined up behind him (read: Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Kelly Loeffler, Josh Hawley, etc). These people may not fit one important point of what Trump supporters are — lacking a college education — but they happily meet the other qualifications: They have proven
EDITORIAL CARTOON
The fate of Tokyo’s postponed Olympics is once again mired in doubt after Japan declared a second state of emergency for metropolitan areas as COVID-19 cases soar to new levels. Japan is one of several countries where the virus has made a comeback in winter months, with Tokyo finding a record 2,447 cases on Thursday last week. The discovery of a new and possibly more infectious strains in the UK and South Africa has also alarmed governments around the world. With fewer than 200 days left until the opening ceremony, the situation has revived questions about the feasibility of safely holding even a limited version of the quadrennial games. While Japan’s infection count has been well below other rich industrialized nations, the pandemic has been a persistent cloud over the Olympics since they were delayed almost a year ago. The restart of sports events around the world and development of vaccines have provided some optimism, but organizers have said that the 2020 Olympics will be canceled — not delayed — if they cannot go on as scheduled. That said, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga reiterated that he was determined to hold the Games, even as he announced the new restrictions. “Under the state of emergency, the idea is that it will likely take a long time to contain the pandemic,” said Kenji Shibuya, professor and director of the Institute of Population Health at King’s College London, and an outspoken critic of Japan’s coronavirus response. ‘NOT REALISTIC’ When asked whether March was an appropriate time to decide on holding the Games, and details on how if they proceed, he said: “It’s not realistic that they can come up with measures by March.” Set to last for a month, current emergency restrictions are narrowly focused on reducing infections at bars and eateries, while events have been spared from across-the-board cancelations. However,
When German Chancellor Angela Merkel steps down in September, she will leave behind a conservative party that has been a practically unchallenged political force in Germany for 16 years and leads political polls by a towering 15 percentage points. And yet the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) might thank her today by electing as its new leader one of her longest-standing political rivals, a man who represents a return to the pre-Merkel past not just in terms of ideological values, but also style of leadership. Millionaire lawyer Friedrich Merz, who was sacked by Merkel as the leader of the CDU’s parliamentary group in 2002, is the favorite among party supporters to take the center-right into the federal elections on Sept. 28 that will decide who succeeds Merkel as Germany’s chancellor. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) have nominated German Minister of Finance Olaf Scholz as its candidate; the Greens are expected to put forward one of coleaders Robert Habeck and Annalena Baerbock. Among the wider population, Merz is seen as a divisive figure harking back to the CDU’s neoliberal era, someone more likely to drive centrist voters loyal to Merkel into the arms of the Greens or the center-left SPD than his CDU rivals Armin Laschet and Norbert Rottgen. At the party’s digital congress yesterday and today, the future leadership of the CDU is to be decided by 1,001 delegates from the party’s local, regional and state associations, who have to square ideological nostalgia with realpolitik. ‘RETURN TO PAST’ Merz remains the candidate to beat. “A CDU led by Friedrich Merz will mean a CDU in opposition, but that is the price a lot of delegates seem willing to pay to get back to the unfiltered CDU of old,” said one member of parliament and Rottgen supporter. Laschet, the folksy state premier of North-Rhine Westphalia, appeared the obvious continuity
During a five-nation visit to Europe by Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) in September last year, German Minister of Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas upbraided Wang to his face for issuing a thinly veiled threat to the Czech Republic. “Threats have no place here [in Europe],” he said. Maas also called on Beijing to rescind Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, implement universal suffrage in the territory and uphold its “one China, two systems” framework that guarantees a “high degree of autonomy.” It was a refreshing moment of candor for a political bloc that all too often looks the other way for fear of upsetting the leaders of the world’s second- largest economy. Could it be that European nations are finally prepared to stand up to Beijing’s bullies? Sadly, the answer is no. On Dec. 30 last year, the EU and China concluded in principle a Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. For a political bloc that purports to care about democracy and human rights, the timing could not be worse; for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the deal is a major diplomatic coup. During the seven years of negotiations leading up to the agreement, China’s behavior has steadily deteriorated to the extent that an increasing number of political thinkers are drawing parallels with 1930s Europe’s slide into fascism. In the past year alone, the world has witnessed a marked increase in Chinese military aggression toward Taiwan, its comprehensive crushing of Hong Kong’s freedoms, an ongoing mass incarceration of Muslim minorities in Xinjiang, and stepped-up cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia and Tibet. Then there was Beijing’s cover-up of the COVID-19 pandemic, its grotesque opportunism following the virus’ spread to the rest of the world, and its continued efforts to browbeat the Australian economy in revenge for the Australian prime minister calling for an open investigation into
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has conveyed in no uncertain terms that the time for ambiguity and confusion about the status of US-Taiwan relations has come to an end. The pronouncement by Pompeo codifies a pattern that US President Donald Trump’s administration has already made a de facto reality: a new era of engagement with Taiwan. While the Democratic Progressive Party and several minority parties in Taiwan welcome this move, there is still resistance to this development by some in Taiwanese politics. The past few years have brought many positive changes to diplomacy for Taiwan — more progress has been made during this period than in any year since 1979, when official relations with the US were discarded in the interest of engaging with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The repercussions of this decision have been myriad, both for Taiwan and the US. However, there is now the possibility of having a new policy regarding Taiwan relations that spans multiple administrations in the US. When undue diplomatic restrictions are normalized in geopolitics, it becomes difficult for countries to know what problems their global counterparts are facing, and to be able to exchange and cooperate freely in order to solve them. Embedded within the concept of the liberal world order we live in is the idea that we are a community of nations, with mutual and interacting interests. When we arbitrarily add friction to diplomatic channels, it not only harms the interests of individual nations, but also faith in the global order. Considering this, the change in US Department of State policy is not only good for US-Taiwan relations, but for international relations as a whole. The loosening of engagement policy is important because it initiates a change in Taiwan-US relations on a practical diplomatic level. The US’ Taiwan Travel
As the saying goes: “Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” One day before handing over the EU presidency to Portugal on Dec. 30 last year, German Chancellor Angela Merkel signed the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Beijing and Taiwan’s pan-blue media greeted the news with wild jubilation, declaring it a second crushing trade deal victory after China signed on to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) on Nov. 15 last year. However, Taiwanese should know that the day before the Chinese Communist Party and the EU inked the agreement, US president-elect Joe Biden’s national security adviser-designate Jake Sullivan posted the following message on Twitter: “The Biden-[US vice president-elect Kamala] Harris administration would welcome early consultations with our European partners on our common concerns about China’s economic practices.” The EU’s snub of Biden’s transition team has reportedly gone down badly in Washington. Xi and Merkel have lobbed a stun grenade into Washington, the impact of which is comparable to the convulsions caused by the British government’s disregarding of then-US president Barack Obama’s opposition to Britain joining the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2015. The AIIB incident roused Washington from its slumber and forced US policymakers to engage in serious introspection over its erroneous long-standing policy of engaging China. This led to Obama’s “pivot to Asia” and “rebalance to Asia” policies, and a determination to contain Beijing’s hegemonic ambitions. Therefore, one can see that containment and “decoupling” are not exclusively “Trumpian” ideas, but were in fact initiated by the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. US President Donald Trump’s administration simply enacted the policies with more enthusiasm and gusto. If the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment compels the incoming Biden administration to more completely understand the reality of the threat posed by China, dispense with past appeasement
On Jan. 2, the New York Times published an article titled “How Taiwan Plans to Stay (Mostly) Covid-Free,” which asks the question: How much longer can Taiwan’s good fortune last? The article describes Taiwan as a “twilight zone” of an “alternate reality” where life goes on as normal amid a pandemic that has wreaked havoc on so many countries around the world. By March last year, the COVID-19 pandemic had reached New York City and I, as a doctoral student at New York University, continued living in the city for another five months before returning to Taiwan. A range of epidemic control measures — including mask wearing, social distancing, meticulous handwashing and even sealing off the city — were employed by the local authorities. The measures certainly had an effect in reducing the impact of the initial wave of the pandemic. Comparing the respective successes that Taiwan and New York City have had in combating COVID-19, sealing ourselves off from China should be the primary means of pandemic prevention and control ahead of these other measures. As a matter of course, mainstream media outlets around the world should adopt a skeptical attitude toward any information and news emanating from China. Right from the start, when news of a mysterious novel coronavirus outbreak in China’s Wuhan first came to light, the Chinese government began to spread misinformation. Chinese officials initially claimed that there was no human-to-human transmission. When that became untenable, they said there was only “limited” human-to-human transmission. When that was proved to be demonstrably false, officials began to push the line that the epidemic was “preventable and under control.” China’s “preventable and under control” pandemic has now infected more than 92 million people, caused almost 2 million deaths and incalculable global economic losses. The New York Times is one of the oldest publications within the US’ fourth
EDITORIAL CARTOON
US president-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on Wednesday next week has raised hopes that his administration would “make America lead again.” If the US is to transform its rivalry with China into constructive competition, this is the right approach. However, whether Biden can restore and sustain the US’ global leadership depends on how effectively he mends domestic fractures and addresses deep-seated misgivings about globalization held by segments of the US electorate. Biden has repeatedly pledged to restore the US’ international reputation and global standing, which were severely damaged under US President Donald Trump. To that end, he would quickly rejoin multilateral institutions (such as the WHO) and international agreements (beginning with the Paris climate agreement) from which Trump withdrew the US. These pledges point to a vision of the US back at the head of the liberal international order, a position from which it can more effectively compete — and cooperate — with China. However, there is good reason to believe that many Americans do not want their country to lead again. Biden’s electoral victory in November last year fell short of the decisive repudiation of Trump and his toxic brand of populism that liberals expected. Yes, Biden won over 81 million votes — more than any US presidential candidate in history. However, Trump received more than 74 million — the second-highest number on record — and increased his share across minority groups, compared with 2016. This is despite an unprecedented parade of scandals and a disastrously mismanaged pandemic. What explains Trump’s enduring popularity? One explanation, advanced by Peter Singer in November, is that nearly half of the US has “lost its soul.” This diagnosis is certainly true of the most disturbing elements of Trump’s voter base, which includes the white nationalists and neo-Nazis who stormed Capitol Hill on Wednesday last week. Even those who
US President Donald Trump’s administration has declassified its strategy to ensure continued dominance over China, which focuses on accelerating India’s rise as a counterweight to Beijing and the ability to defend Taiwan against an attack. US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien on Tuesday announced the publication of the document, titled “US Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific.” Approved by Trump in February 2018, it provided the “overarching strategic guidance” for US actions in the past three years and was released to show US commitment to “keeping the Indo-Pacific region free and open long into the future,” O’Brien said in a statement. “Beijing is increasingly pressuring Indo-Pacific nations to subordinate their freedom and sovereignty to a ‘common destiny’ envisioned by the Chinese Communist Party,” O’Brien said. “The US approach is different. We seek to ensure that our allies and partners — all who share the values and aspirations of a free and open Indo-Pacific — can preserve and protect their sovereignty.” The document lays out a vision for the region in which North Korea no longer poses a threat, India is dominant in South Asia, and the US works with partners around the world to resist Chinese activities to undermine sovereignty through coercion. It assumed that Beijing would take “increasingly assertive” steps to compel unification with Taiwan and warns that its dominance of cutting-edge technologies, such as artificial intelligence, would “pose profound challenges to free societies.” Beijing said the report had “sensationalized the ‘China threat’ theory” and showed that the US had “gone against its own pledge on the Taiwan question.” “The contents only prove the malign motives of the US to contain China and sabotage regional peace and stability,” Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian (趙立堅) told a news briefing on Wednesday. “We need to ensure that Asia-Pacific is a stage for China and
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement on Saturday that the US was to drop self-imposed restrictions on meetings between senior Taiwanese and US officials had immediate real-world effects. On Monday, US Ambassador to the Netherlands Pete Hoekstra met Representative to the Netherlands Chen Hsing-hsing (陳欣新) at the US embassy in The Hague, with both noting on social media the historic nature of this seemingly modest event. Modest perhaps, but their meeting would have been impossible before Pompeo’s announcement. Some have welcomed this move, thinking that it is long-overdue and a step in the right direction to normalizing relations between Taiwan and the US; others were not so welcoming and expressed suspicions that the move was a dying gasp of the administration of US President Donald Trump. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying (華春瑩) called it Pompeo’s “final show of madness,” and Beijing was similarly unimpressed by the announcement of plans for US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft to visit Taiwan. Craft was originally scheduled to arrive yesterday, but the trip was abruptly canceled on Tuesday. The Chinese mission to the UN had issued a statement saying that “whoever plays with fire will burn himself,” and after the cancelation was announced, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokeswoman Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) said that Beijing “resolutely opposes exchanges between the US and Taiwan in any form.” The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) did not have to worry about getting its message across, because Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politicians took over that task. Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) dismissed the planned visit as the US trying to “rile China” and called it a “superficial gesture.” Former KMT chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) questioned the trip’s significance, while former KMT deputy secretary-general Alex Tsai (蔡正元) resorted to ad hominem attacks on Craft. KMT legislators Alex Fai
On Jan. 1, a slew of new measures took effect, including regulations that large users of electricity — defined as those using more than 5,000 kilowatt-hours per month — must boost their use of renewable energy to 10 percent within five years. This requirement, which applies to more than 300 companies mainly in the semiconductor, display panel, steel, petrochemical and textile industries, is a concrete step forward for Taiwan’s “green” energy policy. This year, the UK is to host the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties in Glasgow, Scotland. Taiwan must increase its effort to reduce carbon emissions to align with international developments and goals. As President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said in her New Year’s address, the challenge to reduce carbon emissions must be seen as an opportunity for industrial investment, to create new job opportunities and to find a new direction for the nation’s sustainable development. To be in line with international goals on climate change, Taiwan must reach zero carbon emissions or carbon neutrality by 2050, to maintain a balance between carbon emissions and what the planet can absorb. Taiwan must reduce air pollution and carbon emissions to keep up with the international community and build an international platform. If Taiwan fails to do that, foreign trade would become restricted and economic development blocked. On the road toward reduced carbon emissions, the nation has encountered a few issues that cannot be ignored. First, Taiwan has not been performing well in international climate change ratings, always ranking among the worst performers, and doing particularly badly when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy development. Taiwan’s per capita carbon emissions rank among the highest among developed countries and the highest in Asia. Second, Taiwan’s goals and vision are decidedly sluggish: The official goal is to cut greenhouse gas emission by 20 percent from
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is using US pork as a vehicle for bringing chaos to Taiwan by working against the US and befriending China in a clear manifestation of its ill will. KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) has claimed that he wants to rejuvenate the party, make it Taiwan-centered and befriend the US, but instead he has triggered a doctrinal backlash as the party’s pro-unification faction holds sway over its legislative caucus, while the party leadership has been turned into a lame duck. Chiang himself is becoming overwhelmed by the party’s infighting. The KMT is fighting the import of US pork with such abandon because of its ill intent: It wants to create chaos. It wants to create the impression that Taiwan lacks an effective government capable of carrying out its international duties to prevent Taiwan from raising its international profile and winning more recognition. A country as defined in international law requires a defined territory, a population, effective government and the ability to maintain international relations. Last year, Taiwan displayed international responsibility, received universal praise in contrast to China’s neglect of its international responsibilities. This is China’s sore point and the pro-China camp’s most hated fact. Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) does not stop at contradicting himself to oppose the import of US pork; deep-blue Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) used American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Brent Christensen for her own political purposes; and local government heads take local autonomy to extremes as they oppose the central government’s foreign policy responsibilities and duties. In doing so, they fail to see the huge surge in Taiwan’s international reputation while suffering two self-inflicted slaps in the face from the US. It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry. The AIT issued a strong-worded criticism of Lu’s political media show and removed her from the
It has been a long year since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and still there is absolutely no discernible end in sight. Taiwan has thus far got away relatively unscathed and, as one Bloomberg reporter wrote: “Life in Taiwan ... has been ridiculously normal.” As a medical professional, I know that this is no reason to sit back and rest on our laurels, while we read in the international media how dire the situation is in countries across the world hit much harder by the pandemic. Nevertheless, as President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said in her New Year’s address: Last year “was by no means the most difficult year in human history. The flu pandemic of 1918, the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Second World War in the 1940s were all extremely challenging for the people who lived through them.” For the people who lived through those harrowing times, it must have seemed that they would never see the light at the end of the tunnel. However, as Tsai said, people around the world have shown the resilience to live through those times, and this is reassuring and encouraging for us today. In psychology, the word “resilience” means several things: First, it refers to the reassuring relationship of attachment, leading people to seek shelter, comfort and safety. Second, it is a positive emotion that reduces pain, and is essential for maintaining physical and mental health. Third, it allows us to lead a purposeful life. There are many studies on World War II concentration camp survivors that provide us with a wealth of material to understand resilience. An article published in the New York Times on Jan. 2 commented on Taiwan’s anti-pandemic measures, including sealing itself off from the rest of the world. “How much longer can the island’s good
EDITORIAL CARTOON
Like many teenagers, I was once plagued with angst and dissatisfaction — feelings that my parents often met with bemusement rather than sympathy. They were already in their 50s, and having grown up in postwar Britain, they struggled to understand the sources of my discontentment at the turn of the 21st century. “The problem with your generation is that you always expect to be happy,” my mother once said. I was baffled. Surely happiness was the purpose of living and we should strive to achieve it at every opportunity? I simply was not prepared to accept my melancholy as something that was beyond my control. The ever-growing mass of wellness literature would seem to suggest that many others share my view. However, as a writer covering the latest research I have noticed a shift in thinking, and I am now coming to the conclusion that my mother’s judgement was spot on. Over the past 10 years, numerous studies have shown that our obsession with happiness and high personal confidence might be making us less content with our lives, and less effective at reaching our actual goals. We might often be happier when we stop focusing on happiness altogether. Let us first consider the counterintuitive ways that the conscious pursuit of happiness can influence our mood, starting with a study by Iris Mauss, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The participants were first asked to rate how much they agreed with a series of statements such as: “I value things in life only to the extent that they influence my personal happiness,” and “I am concerned about my happiness even when I feel happy.” The people who scored highly should have been seizing each day for its last drop of joy, yet Mauss found that they tended to be less satisfied with
RSS