The never ending notion that Taiwan will cede its sovereignty to Beijing is alarming when advanced by former US State Department officials like Stanley Roth.
The concept of any 50 year agreement with Beijing is an erosion of the national security of both Taiwan and the US. It is even more alarming that Roth's remaining associates in the State Department have taken the opportunity to officially invoke the Free Compact of Association over the "routine" visit to the Marshall Islands by the Taiwan navy. Roth was very deeply involved in the treaty negotiations with the now independent countries concerned.
The recent and unprecedented denial by State Department officials is clearly an official action which is subject to further scrutiny by the US Congress. Even after the Cold War, the strategic defense of the Western Pacific is essential to the national interest of the US as it negotiates its collective security arrangements.
Concurring, Stanley Roth once testified to Congress: "The question of strategic denial has changed a bit, but I would argue, and I think my Defense Department colleague will argue even more strongly, has not vanished. While there is no navy comparable to the Russian navy today in the Pacific, I would not want to stake my career that there will never be one. The ability to have strategic denial for such a large region has to be important as we think about the future and into the next century. So strategic denial, if not as urgent as during the Cold War, is still a very real interest."(p.30, Joint Oversight Hearing on the Compacts of Free Association with the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. Oct 1, 1998, Washington, DC).
Since the recent departure of Stanley Roth from federal employment, he and his fellow retirees have continued to act with a collusive air of public office as they often pressure President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to negotiate away the sovereignty of Taiwan in accordance with their blue prints for 50 year agreements. Is this a form of private foreign policy? I look forward to Roth's sworn testimony before Congress on this issue.
Jeff Geer
Las Vegas
Inciting rape
I write in response to the letters from Cyndi Lai and Shirley Lin (Feb. 16, page 12).
While I can agree with them, I think the issue that needs to be addressed is "what causes a person to be raped?" Females are most common among rape victims, but some men do get raped by men, and women at times too.
When I was in Taiwan recently, the behavior of both local men and women was frankly shocking. This should be a cause for concern in a society like Taiwan, which proclaims itself to be rather conservative. Vulgar social behavior is very common among women, especially teenage girls. Drinking habits among women are rather unhealthy in a "conservative" society like Taiwan.
Social behavior is one of the important reasons why rape cases are on the rise, and, surprisingly, occurring among friends. The chances of a woman being raped by a strange man are relatively slim. I do not think rape occurs because of the urge to commit rape. It is more due to how a woman presents herself and behaves toward the opposite sex. A seductive provocation and behavior will definitely invite rape.
Of course it is sad for a rape victim to have to suffer further torment and embarrassment. But it is still not right to make men bear all the responsibility, when women fail to carry and present themselves properly in the presence of the opposite sex.
Michael Teo
Singapore
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
During an impromptu Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) rally on Tuesday last week to protest what the party called the unfairness of the judicial system, a young TPP supporter said that if Taiwan goes to war, he would “surrender to the [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army [PLA] with unyielding determination.” The rally was held after former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng’s (彭振聲) wife took her life prior to Pong’s appearance in court to testify in the Core Pacific corruption case involving former Taipei mayor and TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). The TPP supporter said President William Lai (賴清德) was leading them to die on
RSS