Discussing terrorism
I am writing in response to your editorial ("Search for the truth, not a scapegoat," Sept. 13, Page 8). I have no intention of getting into a debate with your newspaper with respect to your view about US policy in the Middle East. That is a topic that is controversial even among Americans.
The view presented in your editorial is therefore certainly nothing new, for I have read and heard similar views before. Of course, this view comes mostly from people of European countries who colonized the Middle East before World War II. It is certainly understandable that they would hold a view different from Americans when it comes to their former colonies. It was just a little surprising hearing that view from a Taiwanese medium usually considered sympathetic to the cause of Taiwan's independence.
I don't know whether you realize this or not but in the eyes of many Americans, US intervention in the Taiwan Strait would be just as excessive as its intervention in the Middle East. These Americans are simply sick and tired of getting into quarrels with countries such as the Arab states and China over other people's affairs, and wasting US tax payers' money on military activities involving these affairs. Despite all this, your view was certainly thought-provoking and to be respected.
I guess the only problem that I have with your editorial is the hint that the terrorists who carried out the New York attacks were not "technically" cowards. Again, I see the logic behind this view, as ordinarily we would not call people willing to give up their lives "cowards."
I hope to draw your attention to one thing, however. Studies conducted on the mentality of terrorists have established that one factor that makes them so willing to carry out suicidal missions of this nature is a portrayal of themselves as heroes and martyrs, giving up their lives for higher causes. Many psychologists have suggested therefore that efforts must be made not to give them any reasons for others in any way to associate their acts with courage and bravery. This way other terrorists might have less motivation to commit similar acts in the future.
Of course, it very possible no terrorist ever reads the Taipei Times or cares about how the Western media perceives them. Nevertheless, don't you agree that we must do our small part to reduce any chance of this type of suicidal attack from happening again? Don't you agree that this is the responsibility of any media group? In particular, I think calling people who killed innocent and unarmed American civilians (including women and children) "cowards" is entirely justified.
Barbara Sherwood
Taipei
I cannot imagine the anger and grief of someone who lost a loved one in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Your editorial does ask a question that is rarely asked, let alone pondered. Certainly, TV coverage has not touched upon it (from what I've seen) and Canadian public radio (CBC) has only done so to a limited extent.
I am a high school science teacher. In my comments to my students, I noted that it would be useful for them to understand what would draw someone to such an evil, hateful act. I recalled my experience discussing the subject of Israel while I was in high school in Calgary with a Lebanese student and a Palestinian student. When I turned my back after the heated debate, the Lebanese student kicked me in the rear. Imagine. This was in a high school in western Canada 17 years ago.
Beyond the Palestinian question, perhaps, the West should consider the consequences that abandoning or watering down the Kyoto Accord would entail. Do thousands of lives lost to changing weather patterns matter any less than the horrific losses of last Tuesday? And this is just one example of the G7's self-absorbed policies.
Thank you for daring to ask such a relevant question. Lest we forget, bin Laden's network originated from the CIA-sponsored Mujahadin freedom fighters of Afghanistan's civil war. Some of your wording may have been insensitive, but you do offer a valid argument. We should all strive to seek a greater understanding of each other and not fall into the trap of self-righteousness.
Leslie Ruo
Saskatoon, Canada
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