- The Washington Times - Wednesday, September 20, 2006

One China

Don Feder is wrong on the question of Taiwan (“Shutting out Taiwan,” Commentary, September 12).

There is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is a part of China’s territory. China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Though reunification is yet to be realized between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits, the fact that both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China has never been changed. This is the status quo of cross-Straits relations. To date, more than 160 countries in the world have established diplomatic relations with China. They all recognize the one-China principle and that Taiwan is a part of China. This is also the principle that the United Nations has consistently adhered to.

In 1971, the 26th Session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by an overwhelming majority, the historic resolution 2758 (XXVI), which stipulated unequivocally that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Thus the issue of China’s representation in the United Nations was solved once and for all. Since Taiwan is a region of China, China’s representation in the United Nations naturally includes Taiwan. There is simply no such issue as the so-called “Taiwan’s representation in the United Nations.” Any attempt to distort or even deny resolution 2758 (XXVI) is futile.

The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization composed of sovereign states. As a part of China, Taiwan is not eligible to participate, in whatever name, in the United Nations and its specialized agencies. On the early morning of Sept. 13, the General Committee rejected the inclusion of the two motions on Taiwan’s “participation” in the United Nations and “peace across Taiwan Straits” in the General Assembly’s agenda. This is the 14th time that the General Committee has rejected similar motions since 1993. This has fully demonstrated the determination of the vast number of member states to safeguard the Charter of the United Nations and resolution 2758 (XXVI). It also shows that Taiwan authorities will never receive international support in their attempt to split China by raising the issue of Taiwan’s participation in the United Nations.

Respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-interference in a country’s internal affairs are important principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The question of Taiwan is purely an internal affair of China. It should be settled jointly by the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. No foreign force has the right to interfere.

The Chinese government has been consistently engaged in maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and achieving peaceful reunification of China. The Chinese government and people love peace. We want more than anybody else to achieve national reunification through peaceful means and maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the Asia-Pacific region. As long as there is a gleam of hope, we will do our utmost and never give up peaceful reunification.

CHU MAOMING

Press Counselor

Embassy

People’s Republic of China

Washington

Americans and Darfurians

Todd Lindberg’s Tuesday Op-Ed column, “Darfurians in crosshairs,” is the best commentary I have seen in the three years that Darfur has been in and out of the international spotlight.

Mr. Lindberg perfectly describes the situation and the obligation of other nations, including the United States, to take “responsibility to protect” the Darfurians from the periodic devastation of their villages and livelihood and from being forced to live in squalid, disease-ridden refugee camps.

Clearly, the situation has reached the point of no return, and unless immediate action is taken, there will no longer be any reason for appeals, rallies and cries for help because the situation will have deteriorated into mere discussions about why and what mistakes were made.

The column ends by stating: “Who will speak up for them and act to vindicate their rights as human beings? That ‘responsibility to protect’ falls to us.” What should the United States do? The president’s speech to the United Nations during the General Assembly is encouraging.

Unfortunately, the United Nations has been called upon to field the largest number of peacekeeping missions in its history. At least 100,000 or more troops are projected to be deployed by the beginning of next year.

Despite the pressure for quick action in Darfur, this peacekeeping burden means there likely will be no U.N. or other troops on the ground before Thanksgiving.

It is regrettable that when our president announced he was appointing a special envoy to the United Nations he did not simultaneously pledge a minimum of 2,000 fully equipped troops to be available for Darfur by Oct. 1 and challenge other nations to do likewise.

The present administration’s position of limiting our contribution to “logistic support” is unacceptable. The United States has the most powerful military force in the world, including a major base in Djibouti.

Calling upon other countries to risk lives while only agreeing to supply logistic support, is not the best policy for the United States at this time. Our reputation, I deeply regret, is so bad that this proposal might just improve our global standing.

EDWARD RAWSON

Vice president

D.C. Chapter

Citizens for Global Solutions

Washington

Shame on Castro

I want to thank Paul Greenberg for his Commentary column “Havana U.S.S.R.,” (Tuesday). What Fidel Castro has done is a crime against the Cuban people. It began after the fall of the Soviet Union — and the loss of millions of dollars in aid that was coming from there. So, to whom did Mr. Castro turn for help? Playboy and the sex industry.

He had photo shoots and other marketing ploys to bring the world’s young men to Cuba. The Cuban women began prostituting themselves to have some money to feed their children. As a result, Cuba has the third-highest abortion rate per woman in the world: six to eight abortions per woman.

All the Cuban people can do is sit by and hope for better days, but even the hope is running out. Thankfully, the Castros cannot last much longer.

MARIA SUAREZ HAMM

Bethesda

Saving the battleships

I have to say well done to Oliver North for having the right idea on using our remaining battleships (“Save the battlewagons,” Commentary, Sunday). Battleships are the only surviving warships designed to take damage and still fight. They were designed to take direct hits from 16-inch shells from other battleships. The battleship platform is the only one the Navy has that can take hits from modern cruise missiles and even torpedoes. As a matter of fact, we do not have the industrial capability to build another.

It’s a comfortable platform to have with our other ships in the Arabian Gulf. Those 16-inch guns can have extended ranges with new projectiles — which were started in development several years ago — and could be resurrected.

Instead, senior Navy officers whine that these are too expensive to man and operate. I submit that we could replace the steam system (boilers, turbines and all the supporting stuff) with either large diesel engines (which already are in use in merchant and passenger ships, so they are available off the shelf) or gas turbines. Electric motors could replace steam turbines. Moreover, while they are in the shipyard, work could be done to replace old cabling, motors, generators, internal communications, etc. Hopefully, the Navy hasn’t already stripped equipment that was installed for their operations in the Gulf. These are horrid thoughts for our surface warfare folks. It is also possible that hulls are no longer seaworthy, although I doubt it.

It would indeed be a crime to junk these ships.

CAPT. JOHN P. PRISLEY

Navy (retired)

Sterling, Va.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide