US will not abandon Iraq
I wish to counter some of the anti-US bias in Sami Ranadani's otherwise excellent article ("From an old tyrant to a new one," Dec. 17, page 9). Yes, the US did make egregious mistakes in the past supporting former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein as well as many other cruel dictators, all in the madness of fighting our real and imagined enemies during the Cold War. Americans understand that era and the mistakes made in winning the Cold War.
What frustrates many Americans is the blind resistance, some of it very violent, to the US' sacrifice in Iraq, resistance that is accomplishing nothing but delaying the departure of the Americans and the arrival of prosperity for Iraqis.
We understand the resistance of the deposed Baathist rulers who would like to be in power and enjoy suppressing the Iraqi people again, and that of al-Qaeda fanatics, our only real enemies.
But we do not understand the anger of the significant numbers of others.
The US' purpose is not to take over Iraq, steal their oil or to suppress Islam. There is no sinister conspiracy. The war was vaguely about weapons of mass destruction (an issue misused by the administration of US President George W. Bush), but mostly to rid a cancerous element from the world's spider web of terrorism that is trying to destroy secular, free civilization.
We believe that the best way to stop the cancer of terrorism is to push more Arabs into a state of freedom, democracy and more prosperity. Iraq can be the beginning and the model of that movement.
Bush can't trumpet that too loudly because of the delicacy of relations with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, but that is the reason he enjoys the backing of most Americans in this new era and new "war." We understand and believe in this greater goal.
The US troops would not be shooting at anyone if there were no fanatical crazed misguided resistance. Are all Arabs ignorant of US history except for the previous US support of Saddam and the previous British occupation?
Are none taught in school that the US sacrificed lives and immense amounts of money, while skillfully managing the complete recovery of a ravaged Europe and Japan back to prosperous and free societies -- then left.
Left, went home (except for some apolitical troops facing overwhelming Soviet troop strength on the other side of the Iron Curtain).
The US has never desired to occupy any other country -- there is no reason to -- we like ours too much.
And let me remind Ranadani what a real occupier looks like: it rounds up 20 or so citizens and shoots them for every soldier killed; it presses the occupied natives into sex camps and slave labor; and it does not repair schools, send in its citizens at great risk to teach self-government nor set up governing councils to write a constitution and organize free elections.
The overriding desire of all Americans and their government is to get out of Iraq. Trust me on this. This goal is being needlessly and bloodily delayed by the blind anti-Western Arab fanaticism. Iraq will have its elections and its self-destiny free of murderous dictators but it can't happen instantly.
The US must in its own long-term international interest assure that the ship is righted. And if somehow this administration, which is doing badly in public relations, were to lose sight of that objective, the next administration would quickly fix that because in the US the will of the people, later if not sooner, prevails.
But to those Iraqis who wish any amount of misery on their country in order to prevent US-sponsored success, I say think twice about blowing yourselves up because I am convinced that the American people are not going to abandon what we see as critical nation-saving objectives in Iraq.
Continuing to try to kill Americans and fellow Arabs who are trying to build Iraq will simply delay a return to normal life for the Iraqi people, who deserve their place in modern history.
Roland Dupree
United States
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath