U.S. Policy on Taiwan

* What The Times didn’t say in its March 7 editorial criticizing the House Republican defense of Taiwan is more disturbing than what you did say.

Not one of the 300 words in your attack piece was critical of Communist China’s aggression toward its Asian neighbors. No condemnation of China’s launch of missiles into target areas a few miles away from Taiwan’s two largest port cities and millions of people--an outrageous act of intimidation.

Nor does The Times mention the dismal human rights record of China’s Communist dictators, their accelerating military buildup, oppression of Tibet, intellectual property piracy, military aggression against Filipino possessions in the Spratly Islands and other atrocities against their own people and their democratic neighbors.

The noise we hear from The Times is instead focused on my telling China’s Communist rulers to “back off!” The clarity of such a statement scares Times editors. So be it. It is exactly the message to send when dictators threaten free people in an emerging democracy.

The Times chooses to defend a policy of “strategic ambiguity,” saying it has worked so far. If this policy has worked so well, why is the list of China’s crimes against humanity still growing?

Ambiguity doesn’t work when you’re dealing with tyrants.

Finally, you attribute China’s belligerence to first-ever democratic elections in Taiwan. It’s unfortunate that Chinese dictators are so terrified of free people voting to elect their own leaders, but it doesn’t justify missile threats and other abusive behavior. That The Times prefers to equivocate is sad, and telling.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER

R-Huntington Beach

Should the U.S. sit back while China intimidates Taiwan with perilous missile tests, pursuing instead a “steady policy” of “strategic ambiguity”? No. We gave Taiwan a pledge in the Taiwan Relations Act, and we must honor it. For too long the U.S. has condoned China’s aggressive behavior for the sake of diplomacy. Come Taiwan’s presidential elections, when the risk of an invasion by China runs high, the U.S. must give its unambiguous defense of Taiwan, not in support of any independence movement, but rather for the sake of enforcing our resolve in Asia, which is crucial to countering a destabilizing Chinese aggression.

VINOY PRASAD

La Verne

Peace in Asia is in the best interest of America. Those who believe that America’s interest can be best served by the secession of Taiwan from China, or by containment to thwart the development of China into an economic world power, are indeed shortsighted.

What America ought to do now, in the best interest of all peoples, is to help bring about a peaceful reunification of Taiwan with mainland China, thereby creating a long-term stable environment for trade and commerce to prosper. Shortsighted military objectives are contradictory to the long-term best interest of America.

STEVE LAU

Fountain Valley

Re “House GOP Wants U.S. Pro-Taiwan,” March 6: This article shows that America has not forgotten its true friends when things get serious. But something bothers me about Sen. Bob Dole’s attitude on this matter. He said, “I would support Taiwan’s having a seat” in the United Nations. . . whether or not I could get that accomplished, I don’t know.” Is this what Americans will get if he becomes our president, and will he deal quid pro quo with issues that could put middle-class Americans further into the economic abyss?

GLENN D. HENDERSON

Torrance