As a European, I am vehemently opposed to the EU lifting the ban on arms sales to China, on the basis of world security as well as Beijing's human rights record.
This is part of a wider problem with the West irresponsibly selling military equipment and training to undemocratic countries and organizations.
However, what Lee Long-hwa fails to address in his letter (Letters, June 15, page 8) is that America is undoubtedly the leader in this respect.
The figures are shocking. Despite the rhetoric of being the guardian of peace and democracy in the world, the US has supplied arms or military technology in about 90 percent of world conflicts in recent years.
In the 1990s, around three-quarters of US arms sales were to undemocratic countries.
While Lee is quite legitimately concerned about America's safety if China were to receive arms from Europe, perhaps he should consider what the effects of his own country's sales have been.
The US armed and trained Osama bin Laden, and gave military aid to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, even after US intelligence reports indicated he was persecuting Kurds in Iraq. If the EU is prepared to sell its soul to the devil, then the US has been guilty of helping to create a few devils.
And what about the rest of the world? Developing nations spend twice as much on the military as on health, and millions of people are dying each year as a result.
And did you know, Lee, that you are probably paying for this? Yes, the US arms industry is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.
Thankfully, there were enough responsible countries in Europe to block France and Germany's desires.
What we need is an international agreement on international arms sales, where countries would have to sacrifice profits for peace.
Given America's rhetoric, perhaps it should be taking the lead.
As then US president Jimmy Carter put it in 1976, "we [the US] cannot have it both ways. We can't be both the world's leading champion of peace and the world's leading supplier of arms."
Philip Wallbridge
Taipei
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS