US drug war `corrupt'
It is obvious that the US Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) corrupt drug war drives the corrupt drug policies of many countries around the world, including those in Latin America ("Latin America remains fragile," March 24, page 9). The corrupt leaders of these countries nevertheless pretend that their corrupt policies are sovereign and independent.
The thing that makes drugs and dealers dangerous and violent is the drug war. The prohibition itself is what allows these dealers to exist in the first place. By declaring a war on them, their businesses and their goods, the US government surely in-vites them to respond in kind.
Only one thing is going to separate the dealers from their huge profits and it isn't the government's war. It is decriminalization, legalization, regulation and an end to the government's domestic war on drugs.
Drug dealers, warlords, kingpins and guerillas fear only one thing. They don't fear the DEA, CIA, FBI or any other law enforcement agency, politicians or armies, because they either already own them or have them outgunned. What they do fear is legalization and regulation.
The government rarely lists "victory" as an objective in its expensive and oppressive war. When it does spout its "zero tolerance, total victory" rhetoric, how many of your readers actually believe it? How many actually believe that this year's multi-billion-dollar drug war budget will be the one that will achieve total victory after decades of billion-dollar budgets have failed?
Law enforcement, customs, the prison service and military-industrial complex, the drug-testing industry, the drug-treatment industry, the INS, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA and the politicians themselves are probably unable to live without the budget appropriated to them for the war, not to mention the invisible profits, bribery, corruption and forfeiture benefits that prohibition affords them.
The drug war also promotes, justifies and perpetuates racist enforcement policies and is eroding many freedoms that are supposed to be inalienable under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Myron Von Hollingsworth
Fort Worth, Texas
Wrong targets
It was with incredulity that I read about the "success" of Taipei traffic officials in handing out fines to over 2,000 motorcyclists in an attempt to clamp down on illegal lane swapping, among other things ("Strict traffic crackdown underway in Taipei City," March 2, page 2).
It amazes me how traffic-unfriendly roads in Taiwan are to motorcyclists. This is so ironic, since there is supposedly one motorcycle to every two persons in the country. The assault on motorcyclists underlines, more than anything, the inability of traffic officials to enforce more essentials laws that are applicable to drivers of cars and larger vehicles.
Why don't they use their resources and efforts to tackle 18-wheelers who go through red traffic lights? Why are efforts not directed at drivers who adopt the "bigger goes first" mentality and literally muscle motorcyclists out of the way? The traffic department needs to prioritize more judiciously.
There is no success in constantly harassing motorcyclists when there are bigger and more crucial problems created by drivers. Yes, illegal lane swapping is dangerous, but so are those large trucks and the third-world road culture that leads to the above-mentioned infringements. In fact, the latter poses a greater threat to public safety.
The time has come for motorcyclists to get a sense of ownership when it comes to the roads, and to have that sense with a greater level of security.
Brandon Stoltenkamp
Kaohsiung
Reduce traffic light periods
A simple way to reduce the number of traffic accidents that result from people jumping red lights, would be to simply reduce the time it takes for the lights to change. It has often baffled me why the lights are programmed to test the patience of even the most snail-like of motorists.
Reducing the waiting time would reduce impatience, speed up traffic and encourage people to wait their turn -- opposed to the insanity that one witnesses every day on Taiwan's streets.
Adam Rose
London
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS