Editorial off-base, offensive
Your pretentious yet myopic editorial ("Search for the truth, not a scapegoat," Sept. 13, page 8), marks a low point for your paper, which I read daily and normally appreciate.
The self-righteous editorialist asks, "If it [the US] lived up to its self-image, why would anybody hate it?" It would seem that an organization as conscious as the Taipei Times of Taiwan's history of persecution and oppression would know the answer even before the question is asked: there are individuals and governments who believe that their values are superior to hope, freedom and liberty. The Taliban for example, or Saddam Hussein. Chinese emperors. The Dutch and other colonial exploiters. Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and the Chinese Communists.
The US is not a perfect society or government; it never has been and never will be. But it strives for perfection in that it allows for the expression of all points of view, takes them into consideration, and makes a decision that it believes will benefit itself and mankind. God bless America. God bless people who love hope, freedom and liberty around the world.
Kevin Scott
Washington
I read with outrage your editori-al. As a US citizen who may have lost a person very dear to me in the attacks in New York, I take personal offense. The editorial, was ill-thought and poorly-timed.
The emphasis on Palestinians was puzzling and the misdeeds of the Israelis overstated -- both have committed their share of atrocities in a conflict where each has at least an arguable claim to sovereignty of the disputed territory. It is true that the US has committed acts in the Middle East which have led to the dislike and even hatred of local residents (the support of the late Shah of Iran and reported training of his secret police in torture comes to mind).
But you have missed an essential truth: many of the members of the Taliban and Muslim extremist organizations throughout the world hate the US for what it at its best repre-sents: a set of ideals largely antithetical to their own. The individual freedoms granted citizens in Western nations threaten the foundation upon which the utopia they seek to establish rests.
These are groups which treat women as less than chattels and commit acts of extreme brutality against fellow Muslims for trivial "offenses." These are organizations which sentence to death those who adhere to a different set of ideals or even their own members for any perceived criticism or heresy. These are uncompromising people who consider themselves threatened by the encroachment of Western values in a world of ever-shrinking borders, who again and again have declared themselves in a state of "religious war" with the US and its allies, and who grant no quarter and will use any means in pursuit of retribution.
The Koran does not support the views of extremists. It is a tragedy that a religion whose adherents are frequently peaceful and compassionate has been to an extent hijacked this century by fanatics who preserve their power by violence against dissenters.
It is reckless journalism for your paper to act as an apologist for the Taliban, Osama bin Laden or whatever organization committed or supported the attack by implying that the hatred evidently felt by the terrorists is justified by the "duplicity and hypocrisy" of the US. Retraction or clarification is in order.
William H. Edwards
Taipei
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS