Letters to the Editor

Staying the course

Contrary to assertions published in The Washington Times (“Elections in Ukraine,” Letters, July 12), the election of Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych as his country’s next president would be Ukraine’s best chance at integrating with the West while maintaining stability in Eurasia.

Since his appointment as Ukraine’s prime minister in November 2002, Mr. Yanukovych has developed strong relationships with world politicians, including leaders in the United States and Russia as well as in Europe. Most important, he has shown his ability to garner strong support across Ukraine’s diverse regions, a matter of vital importance for a newly independent democracy.

Mr. Yanukovych has successfully steered Ukraine on a centrist course that cultivates good relations with all of Ukraine’s regional partners. He also is an economic realist who has made economic progress and better living standards his priority for Ukrainians.

Ukraine’s economy has blossomed during the Yanukovych premiership, with the gross domestic product (GDP) growing at 12.7 percent from January to June, while inflation remained at a manageable 6.6 percent as of April. (Far too many Ukrainians remember the dangerously high 25.8 percent inflation rate in 2000, during the term of former Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko, Mr. Yanukovych’s main opponent for the presidency.)

Mr. Yanukovych has undertaken other needed reforms, including enactment of safeguards for intellectual property rights (which Mr. Yushchenko opposed) and tightened laws on money laundering, a crucial element in the war against global terrorism.

Misguided ad hominem attacks on the prime minister’s character are a sad commentary on the political poverty of his opponents, not on Mr. Yanukovych.

Instead of lambasting him for his alleged youthful indiscretions, charges that have been overturned by the court, he should be praised for being resilient enough to escape the trappings of his rough childhood and become a successful business executive, regional governor of Donetsk and Ukraine’s 10th prime minister.

As the election in Ukraine approaches, distorted attacks on the prime minister are proliferating, both in the United States and Ukraine. At a time when a noted billionaire has declared openly that he intends “to spend whatever it takes to defeat [President] Bush at the polls” this year, American readers should be wary of well-funded efforts to skew coverage of elections in other countries.

STEVE MIROY

Stafford, Va.

Save the Field of Dreams

Though the debate over saving the Field of Dreams in Riverdale Park may seem a tempest in a teapot to some, it is a very real concern to many town residents (“Ball field sale protested,” Metropolitan, Monday).

I moved to Riverdale Park in 1987, and two of my reasons for doing so were the many parks and the sense of living in a pleasant, family-oriented neighborhood. Since then, bit by bit, our parks have disappeared. With so many young people getting involved with crime, we should treasure everything that allows children to have good, normal childhoods. This park is used and appreciated. Every time I go by there children are playing and people are strolling around.

Other Riverdale Park “residents” who would be drastically affected by the sale of the Field of Dreams are the numerous animals — birds, butterflies, etc. — that live on the edges of the park and depend on the trees and grass to give them food and shelter. Herons roost in the trees at night, and early in the morning you can see rabbits, deer, and even an occasional fox. Do we really want a town where the only animals children see are starlings, pigeons and rats?

I’m not involved in town politics, and I’m not protesting the sale of the Field of Dreams to get back at any elected officials. I am deeply saddened by their actions, as I have always hoped they had the best interests of their constituents at heart. Money does talk, but places such as the Field of Dreams, where our children can build memories to tell their children, are priceless.

SUSAN COLLINS

Riverdale Park

Troubles in Taiwan

In his excellent column “Wrong on China … and Taiwan” (Commentary, Sunday), William Triplett points out Sen. John Kerry’s stances on China and Taiwan issues, a record that seems to be littered with misunderstandings of China’s communist regime.

No one is certain if and how Mr. Kerry’s posture on Taiwan will change if he is elected. What is certain is that a Kerry administration would be less supportive of Taiwan than the Bush administration is.

Clearly, the two presidential candidates differ on their fundamental approaches to Taiwan.

Under President Bush, the strategicambiguitythat seemed to dominate U.S.-Taiwanese policy vanished when, in 2001, Mr. Bush promised to do “whatever it takes” to help Taiwan defend itself. Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, claims the country would be “better served by the ambiguity that has existed” in U.S.-Taiwanese relations.

Neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Kerry has made East Asian affairs a big part of the campaign, but they both should. China is quickly modernizing its military in an attempt to counter the American military presence in the Pacific. It has been reported that China is conducting military exercises this month simulating the invasion of Taiwan.

The strategic balance is shifting in the Pacific, and the United States must be ready for it. Regardless of who is elected president, the U.S. commitment to Taiwan as defined in the Taiwan Relations Act (the law of the land and the cornerstone of U.S.-Taiwanese relations) and the U.S. commitment to democracy and self-determination for the Taiwanese people must remain strong.

The power paradigm in Asia can be influenced by who is elected president, but the fate of Taiwan can and must only be decided by the people of Taiwan. Presidents come and go, but Taiwan will continue to be a bastion of democracy in Asia, a light that shines in a region that is increasingly clouded by the red fog of the People’s Republic of China.

KEIMAY YANG

JOSHUA WU

Washington

Left out in the cold

In his Tuesday Commentary column “Vivid Cyprus memories,” Claude Salhani does not mention that Turkey intervened in Cyprus in July 1974 as a guarantor state under the 1960 Agreements of Zurich and London.

As a result of this legitimate and timely action, Turkish Cypriots were saved from imminent destruction by Greek Cypriots, and the independence of Cyprus was protected from union with Greece (enosis). One should remember that the Turkish Cypriots were subjected to an 11-year-long, Bosnia-like ethnic cleansing campaign between 1963 and 1974.

It is remarkable that after all they have gone through, the Turkish Cypriots have demonstrated a genuine desire to settle their differences with the Greek Cypriots in a peaceful, amicable way, through negotiations. The latest demonstration of this was the 65 percent yes vote in a referendum on a U.N. plan for reunification on April 24 this year. In a separate but simultaneous referendum, the Greek Cypriot inhabitants of the island gave a resounding no to the plan by a 3-1 majority, leaving all settlement efforts in abeyance.

Yet, in an ironic twist of events, it was the Greek Cypriots who entered the European Union in May, while the Turkish Cypriots were left out in the cold. Justice and fairness require that the isolation to which Turkish Cypriots have been subjected for years be brought to an end, and that these peaceful, democratic people be allowed to integrate with the rest of the international community.

NACI SARIBA

Charge d’affaires

Turkish Embassy

Washington