EU's denial of visa ironic
There has never been a greater irony than the EU's denial of a visa to President Chen Shui-bian (
Has Europe forgotten the painful lesson of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain's failed appeasement policy toward the Nazis? Chen is a freedom fighter while China's authoritarian regime is a notorious suppressor of freedom. What moral value is the EU trying to promote? Caving in to Beijing's pressure now will only encourage the bully to be even more aggressive later.
President George W. Bush said "You're either with us or against us." Apparently, he meant that there is no gray area between support for and opposition to terrorism. In practice, it is far more difficult to draw a line in the case of terrorism. Even the BBC World Service has decided to refrain from calling the Sept.11 attacks in the US terrorist.
The world is a closely interwoven fabric. Trade and exchanges between countries are indispensable for prosperity and survival. The EU, the US and even Taiwan have to do business with China. But this should be conducted in accordance with international rules and moral values.
When the world compromises these rules and values, it will just reap more chaos and disorder. The EU should take note.
Yang Ji-charng
Columbus, Ohio
Justice as an aim of policy
After a period of studied restraint following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the US government has now achieved success in using limited military means in its bid to eliminate the staging area of possible future terrorist attacks. This was wisely accompanied by wide-ranging humanitarian and diplomatic actions to help Aghan civilians. The dual tactics of war and peace have brought about change in a troubled country -- a change that augurs well for future developments within and around Afghanistan.
The Bush administration's priority is to bring the leading terrorists to justice, rather than retribution and revenge. Bush and his Cabinet deserve praise for this -- as does the attitude of the American people. Justice has not yet been achieved, but with justice as the US motivation -- rather than being motivated by geopolitical considerations and retaliation -- the world remains sympathetic and supportive toward the US.
In 1991, the Gulf War ended in the liberation of Kuwait. But justice was not done. A plunderer had ravaged a home and was then driven out by friends and neighbors. But the plunderer had set fire to that home, leaving wanton destruction behind. This plunderer still hasn't been punished. He was allowed to lick his wounds and to keep on harboring and encouraging terrorists.
To punish Iraqi leader Sad-dam Hussein personally then was considered "politically impossible." It was said that the US had no mandate from the UN or from the US Congress to take so serious a step. And public opinion insisted on bringing US soldiers home.
An attack on Iraq is being contemplated now. What is the moral conscience of the US and the UN on this question? Does the statute of limitations apply in international law? Should Iraq be punished now for its invasion of Kuwait and the damage done to that country? If it was morally and legally justifiable to punish Iraq in such a manner 10 years ago, then what has happened to New York and Washington could have been prevented.
The present crisis seems to show that in war, as in peace, justice is becoming a more dominant force in the moral make-up of the world's population than ever before. This also seem to be the case when we look at the policy-making of governments -- it seems to be driven more by a sense of justice than ever before. To do what is right has greater glory than might.
Lew Yu-Tang
Taipei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS