In its campaign against Iraq, America is virtually alone. Never has it provoked so much public opposition, resentment and mistrust. I fully support US President George W. Bush in his efforts to defend his homeland, to defend democracy and to take any measures to end the threat of terrorism. I do not believe that those anti-war factions in Taiwan have a clear understanding of how we live (with democracy and justice), what we fear (terrorism and biowarfare) and what we support (prosperity and lawfulness).
The news media in Taiwan is biased in the reporting of the crisis in Iraq. Pack journalism -- the tendency to cover what everyone else is covering -- adds to that occupational hazard. Many recent stories by journalists in Taiwan take an essentially immoral view of Bush. Various critics from opposition camps view the Bush administration as misguided, incompetent or overly hungry for war -- a few even seriously entertain the claim that president Chen Shui-bian's administration is bent on political conquest through self-aggrandizement or by being an incompetent sidekick to Bush.
The anti-war activists completely ignore the evidence of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's intractable evil -- his state-backed megalomania, his unprovoked wars of aggression, his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Shiite minority in Iraq, the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors, the attacks on US aircraft, his support for terrorist organizations and his defiance of 17 UN resolutions since his defeat in the Gulf War. This includes the one which was passed just four months ago, giving him a "final opportunity" to comply "fully and immediately" or face "serious consequences."
Saddam's administration was full of terrorist-style plans to create biological weapons. The regime sought to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has in several documented cases succeeded. Saddam gassed 60,000 of his own people in 1988, and launched two catastrophic wars, sacrificing nearly a million Iraqis and killing or wounding more than a million Iranians. Human rights atrocities have also become the norm in Iraq. Arbitrary arrests and torture are systematic. Female political prisoners are raped as a matter of policy. Prisoner executions occur without due process. Saddam has long been prepared to subject his people to a devastating war for one purpose -- to extend his power by developing and deploying the world's deadliest weapons.
We should be dedicated to ending the suffering of all people, including the Iraqi people. They are prisoners in their own land and they yearn for freedom and for the simple things that we take for granted -- democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right to vote. Only the marshalling of American and coalition troops on his border interrupted Saddam's pursuit of power. Only the most naive moralists could fail to admit the implications of Saddam's behavior.
Crises require serious moral judgment, backed by swift and lethal force. Neither of these were employed during the outbreak of hostilities in Kosovo or Rwanda: in Rwanda alone, the UN stood by as mindless bloodletting claimed upwards of 800,000 lives. The faith-based idealism of some anti-war groups, however, is no substitute for sober judgment when considering the threat from Baghdad. I respect the right of free expression by any citizen, a right no one has enjoyed under Saddam. I wish people would praise the US and coalition troops in the field, or just stay silent. When Iraq is finally liberated, anti-war groups will learn that they have not been speaking for the people of Iraq.
Sometimes I wonder how many great thinkers and ideas have been eliminated by vicious regimes. Mahatma Gandhi would never have been able to get his message out if he were living in present-day Iraq or any other harsh dictatorship. He wouldn't have lived long enough for the world, much less his countrymen, to hear his name. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr is another example of this truth.
I believe that the anti-war movement is actually a positive thing for the world. It shows that our system is working. Our job now is to fight the propaganda and to make sure that the focus stays on the issue. Saddam's ruthlessness, aggression against his neighbors, contempt for international law and desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- are all facts which are plain enough. No faith is required to see such self-evident truth.
In principle and in practice, US power is not simply good for America, it is good for the world. Most of the problems the world faces today -- from nuclear proliferation, war crimes, land mines, biological weapons, to the combating of AIDS -- will be solved with increased US engagement. Other countries are neither ready nor able to take on the challenges and burdens of international leadership. Suddenly, terrorism has become the world's chief priority, and every country has had to reorient its foreign policy accordingly.
Defeating this despotic monster will send a timely message to other state sponsors of terrorism. We should give full support to the US as it tries to muzzle Saddam in Iraq, Kim Jong Il in North Korea or Osama bin Laden, in whatever cave he may be hiding in.
Chang Chun-hung is a DPP legislator.
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS