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
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