War is not the answer
Chin Heng-wei's (
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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS