Fri, Oct 26, 2001 page12

• Letters:

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  War is not the answer

  Chin Heng-wei's (金恆煒) says the war being waged against the people of Afghanistan is "difficult, but necessary" ("Fighting a difficult but necessary conflict," Oct.11, page 8). Chin then abandons this line of thought, without having given the slightest argument as to why the Bush administration "had to respond with war."

  Clearly, the US had a wide range of options at its disposal. There are international laws and bodies designed specifically to deal with such situations. The lawful approach would have required compiling evidence against the alleged perpetrators, presenting this evidence to an international body such as the World Court, bringing the suspects to trial and, ideally, to justice.

  This approach, coupled with an analysis of the root causes of terrorism (all kinds, not just the terrorism of our "enemies"), would have been the logical course of action, if the goal of the "war against terror" was indeed to reduce the amount of terrorism in the world.

  The US, however, in keeping with its traditional foreign policy, chose to scuttle any possibility of a legal diplomatic solution. The US chose to ignore the law, threatening attack and then following through. The results were predictable: more deaths (by starvation and bombs), coupled with an increased risk of further terrorist attacks.

  Thus, the belligerence of the US and the complicity of its allies, is in fact counterproductive in terms of the stated goal of reducing the amount of terrorism in the world. That is to say nothing of its illegality and immorality.

  Answering acts of terror with more terror will only result in a horrific cycle of unrestrained violence. It is precisely for this reason that bodies such as the UN and laws such as Article 51 of the UN Charter, (which guarantees the right of self-defense to UN member states in the event of an armed attack on such a state but reserving "the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security") are in place.

  Dan Ransom

  Tainan

  Lee was right to come back

  The humiliating setback Taiwan suffered during the recent APEC meeting, like the threat issued by China's premier on the eve of last year's election, should have served as a wake up call for all of Taiwan's people, including those in the pro-unification camp. Unfortunately, judging by the response from the media, opposition parties and general public, Taiwan's relationship with China will be "business as usual." The public's feelings toward China, as reflected by the media, are as naive and feverish as ever.

  China may have toned down its rhetoric against Taiwan and cross-strait trade does continue to increase. China may share common languages, culture and blood lines with Taiwan. But it is not a friend.

  China is still an enemy. Its attitude toward Taiwan is haughty, arrogant and irrational. Its goal is to eradicate Taiwan's government and bring the Taiwanese to their knees.

  However, what drives the cold war between China and Taiwan isn't the power of military forces arrayed, the peoples' wishes or even geographic necessity. It is the resolve of a nationalistic China. Taiwan's people and government lack the resolve to define this relationship with and deal with China.

  The APEC setback prompted the pro-unification camp to increase their efforts, in collusion with China, against a democratically elected government. Again, instead of being united against the enemy, the resulting finger pointing has all been focused inward. Taiwan is divided and hapless in the face of this ferocious and barbaric enemy.

  Taiwan is becoming an increasingly polarized society. Politicians bicker over power and vendettas. Yet the people remain nonchalant. No wonder former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) chose to step out of retirement to fight -- for Taiwan's democracy, freedom and prosperity are in jeopardy.

  John Yang

  Columbus, Ohio

  Cowardice and hypocrisy

  As a French citizen living in Taiwan, I feel deeply ashamed by my country's refusal to issue a visa to President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) so he could receive a freedom award in Strasbourg -- and even more by the restrictions imposed on his wife if she goes to collect the prize on his behalf.

  We French often like to boast that freedom is everything to us, and to criticize others about their own human rights record. A love of freedom, though, that doesn't go any deeper than the linings of our wallets. For us, the very thought that by letting the Taiwan president on our soil, we shall indispose Beijing and might thus loose some of the money to be made in the China trade, is unbearable. Love of freedom? We should say we love cowardice, greed and hypocrisy, at least that would be the truth.

  Elisabeth Cazer

  Tamshui

  Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    German warships to pass through Strait

  • 2

    Sino-Russian air patrol designed to counter US

  • 3

    Court orders Ko Wen-je’s detention

  • 4

    Silicon photonics alliance formed

  • 5

    Ko Wen-je release quashed