US policy like China’s
Two points in Parris Chang’s op-ed article (“Justifying US arms sales to Taiwan,” Feb. 22, page 8) need some elaboration.
First, Chang makes the point, “For 30 years, the US has observed a ‘one China’ policy, but the definition of that policy is vastly different to Beijing’s.” The US policy, although somewhat ambiguous, is indistinguishable from China’s in my opinion. In 1992, the Republic of China (ROC), under a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, said it does not have any territorial claims on China, implying, at the very least, a One China, One Taiwan policy.
In 1999, former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright completely repudiated the idea of “state to state” relations proposed by former president Lee Tung-hui (李登輝). Here the US clearly refuses to acknowledge Taiwan as a nation. If there are differences from Beijing’s stance, such nuances are indiscernible to mere mortals.
During the admistration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), despite Taiwan’s repeated pledges to maintain the “status quo,” the US treated this country as an international pariah; a truly shameful, hostile attitude toward a supposed democratic ally under siege by a powerful dictatorship.
Second, while it can be agreed that the weapons included in the recent US arms sale to Taiwan are defensive, their efficacy in short-term defense is debatable. The biggest item, Patriot missiles, is virtually untested in combat and the missiles’ early, mediocre performance in the first Gulf War nearly 20 years ago is not reassuring in light of the vast advances that have been made in offensive missile technology.
China is probably just interested in opportunistic US bashing over the arms sale (it does not bother to be critical of Taiwan), knowing that poor Taiwan is just a victim being forced to buy up obsolete white elephant sale items so as to avoid complete abandonment by US “friends.”
These weapons suck up Taiwan’s financial resources but add nothing to rectifying the growing military imbalance across the Taiwan Strait. China knows that best but the current KMT government here acquiesces in buying this junk because not to do so would raise real fears about its headlong embrace of China.
John Hanna
Taoyuan
Security should stop thefts
It’s a fact that air travel has changed dramatically since Sept. 11. Long lines have led to passenger frustration. Demeaning regulations force billions around the world to take off their shoes, while suspect toothpaste tubes and water bottles are routinely confiscated.
Now we are asked to fork over more money when buying a ticket to pay for the salaries of newly trained air marshals. What is surprising and unnerving is that in the face of all these rules and regulations, enforced in the name of security, airports are not safer, more secure places at all. Baggage pilfering and theft are rampant and even after reporting them, investigation into claims of missing goods rarely leads to the recovery of items or incarceration of criminals.
Last month I boarded a flight to the Philippines and upon landing discovered that my new digital camera had been removed from its case in my check-in luggage. When I reported the incident, I was told that I shouldn’t have put anything valuable in my bag.
The absurdity of the comment put me into a rage and I struck back, saying that “all my luggage is valuable” and asked if I would be allowed to carry on my dive gear, which so happens to be much more expensive than the camera. No chance, as that would be far too much weight.
After filling out an incident report, expecting subsequent investigation, I received a telephone call from the airline offering apologies but no compensation. I began to reflect on the situation and realized that airports are not so safe after all. What could be taken out of my bag when no one was looking could also be put into it as well.
Paul Oliver
Kaohsiung
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry