`One China' fans ignore rights
The letter by Arthur Li (Letters, Aug. 15, page 8) is accurate in its assessment of Taiwan's history. The US has legally handled the Republic of China with kid gloves for over 50 years, but it is time those gloves came off. It is not wise for Washington to ignore the mounting voices calling for the alienable right of Taiwan to be protected.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty custodial rights of Taiwan, as mentioned by Li, are rooted in the basic civil rights of the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Currently, there are 4 million Americans living under these basic civil rights protections. The former US Trust Territory was also governed by the San Francisco Treaty and its 100,000 island citizens were under these American judicial protection of the very same basic civil rights. However, US former secretary of state Henry Kissinger never gave a damn about them when he was in office.
Meanwhile, Kissinger pushed for the signing of the Shanghai Communique. The question of South Vietnam and Taiwan were quietly abandoned on Feb. 28, 1972. But Taiwan refuses to go away silently.
Thus Kissinger proteges of the "one China" policy have continued to be busy in their serious civil-rights trampling of Pacific islanders protected under treaty.
Former US ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke has a legacy dating from 1979 that inspired the human-rights clause in the Taiwan Relations Act.
But then, his enduring calls for the Fourth Communique on Taiwan have been more than innocent commentary. Since 1999, he has assumed civilian sector employment with the American International Group (AIG).
AIG is the leader of the China corporate lobby and is the only major underwriter of political risk insurance which is needed by 300 American corporations lobbying for China membership in the WTO.
After 1996, the Overseas Political Insurance Corp (OPIC) stopped underwriting political insurance for any US investments in China.
AIG was first encouraged by Kissinger to fill the void left by OPIC. Taiwan is still covered by OPIC; it continues to be an important US government agency to the Taiwan economy.
Stephen Solarz was the leading "one China" policy adviser to former vice president Al Gore, and it was chronicled by author Bill Trippett in the Red Dragon Rising and Year of the Rat. The theft of nuclear technology and the transfers of technology by the former US president Bill Clinton insiders leaves a foul odor in the air around these self-appointed commissars of "one China." Solarz resigned from Congress under allegations of triad connections in Hong Kong.
Stanley Roth was the leading "one China" commissar under the Clinton administration. He started as a staffer under Congressman Stephen Solarz and he later dealt with prolonged Micronesian negotiations for independence in the 1980s. The concept of basic civil rights is wasted on Roth as his speeches have publicly disavowed the human rights clause in Taiwan Relations Act.
Perhaps he should be publicly reminded about those "undefined" civil rights protections of Micronesia. Under the San Francisco Treaty, they were first judicially defined in 1900 by Article 9 as "undefined" civil rights of islanders stemming from Treaty of Paris ratification in 1898. (See Downes v. Bidwell).
Then there is the odious Dr. Kenneth Lieberthal. Reports by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times suggested his professional advocacy of the tacit approval of the PLA invasion of Kinmen and Matsu in 1999. Lieberthal's continuing statements to the press on Chinese leader Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) are troubling.
It seems the commissars of "one China" policy will never cease to be apologists for the human-rights abusers in Beijing. Then this is not a surprise in light their poor track record under American law for the civil rights of Pacific islanders.
I am not able to fathom how the commissars of "one China" policy can sleep at night. This behavior is not innocent speech nor abstract exercises of intellect when the civil rights of 23 million people are being willfully ignored because of these policy commissars.
Arthur Li is very right about Taiwan's status and the Taiwan civil rights issue will not rest in peace.
Jeff Geer
Manaus, Brazil
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