Michael J Fonte wrote an eloquent piece on the shifting position of the US Department of Defense (DOD) in defending Taiwan as a matter of American national interest (Dec. 26, page 8). The DOD has under US law, however, obligations to Taiwan that are far more legally binding than civilian policymakers at the US State Department have ever conceded. Mr. Fonte regrettably overlooks this most important military mandate, hence his article's exclusion of the foremost policy position of the TRA, which is made at Section 2 (c), and reads: "Nothing contained in this Act shall contravene the interest of the United States in human rights, especially with respect to the human rights of all the approximately 18 million inhabitants of Taiwan. The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the United States."
This military mandate has been insidiously buried within American military laws and regulations, and it is not surprising that the Clinton administration of draft-dodging intellectuals would ever stop to think that the TRA's policy mandates for the elaboration of the American national interest are legal issues of a specific military nature. This clause in the TRA, defining the national interest of America, must be construed as giving the highest consideration to the protection of human rights in Taiwan. Otherwise, the powers that be risk violating their oaths of office. When conflicting State Department definitions of national security like the "one China" policy are wrongfully advanced by government officials, their compromising behavior is a contravention of the TRA.
The new policy shift of the DOD is a most welcome and insightful development. Unfortunately, civilian lawyers and pundits are still missing what is clearly the highest military priority under the laws pertaining to Taiwan. It is to be hoped that the incoming civilian policy makers of the Bush administration will publicly acknowledge the extent of the legal obligations due to Taiwan before they unambiguously imperil their more personal policy preferences for China. Please don't forget, the preservation and enhancement of human rights on Taiwan are obligations of the US under US law.
Jeff Geer
Henderson, NV, USA
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
RSS