In the latest Nelson Report Rupert Hammond-Chambers of the US-Taiwan business council explains the reasoning behind the choice of Paul Wolfowitz as Chairman of the organization:
TAIWAN...reaction, informally, in US-Taiwan circles to the surprise announcement of Paul Wolfowitz as chairman of the US-Taiwan Business Council has been, to be frank, incredulous.
To outside observers, the pick seemed to reflect a giant bet on the McCain campaign, as it's hard to see how Wolfowitz, as a major architect of the failure in Iraq, would be able to make arguments on Taiwan's behalf which would be received in the same way in a Democratic administration.
But the very able, respected president of the group, Rupert Hammond-Chambers, has very kindly explained the thinking behind Wolfowitz's appointment:
"Chris, I just want to reiterate why we at the Council don't view your concerns as relevant to our work. We don't view our chairman through the prism of US domestic politics.
Our Council has had a number of Chairmen since our inception in 1976. We have had Republicans as chairman during Democratic presidencies and Democrats as chairman during Republican administrations. We don't attempt to game out who we think the American people will choose to run the country when we deliberate over who we think would make a good chairman.
Our approach is to identify senior former government officials or business leaders who have an in-depth understanding of US-Taiwan-China relations. It's critical to our work that our leadership understand the pitfalls inherent in just speaking in front of an informed audience let alone attempting to act as a platform to conduct a complex economic relationship. Our entire success is predicated on our ability to chart a course that doesn't attempt to make decisions based on picking winners. We work with Republicans, Democrats, KMT and DPP. The Council is proud to call many in each community friend and have the highest regard for their views on US-Taiwan-China relations.
I have no idea who will win our election in November but I do know that Dr. Wolfowitz has an outstanding background in Asia and he will surely make a superb chairman for our group."
[Taiwan]
12 comments:
.
.
.
To outside observers, the pick seemed to reflect a giant bet on the McCain campaign, as it's hard to see how Wolfowitz, as a major architect of the failure in Iraq would be able to make arguments on Taiwan's behalf which would be received in the same way in a Democratic administration....
Hmm...maybe they know something we don't know -- involving Diebold.
Richard Perle, another architect in the invasion of Iraq has stated publicly (in 2003) that it is an illegal war and occupation. Why does the term "illegal" not enter the discussion describing these war criminals?
Until it does, history will repeat itself again and again.
.
.
.
I am so impressed! Look how much Wolfowitz accomplished with his in depth understanding of Iraq!
Just a quick note on the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz as Chairman, U.S.-Taiwan Business Council. In a nutshell, it's a great choice. What's unfortunate is the inability of most to discriminate his policies regarding the Middle East and those in the Asia-Pacific region. And China/Taiwan in particular.
I don't have it handy, but it could be instructive to review speeches or testimonies that Dr. Wolfowitz has presented over the last seven years or so. On China/Taiwan, he's been a moderate. In fact, perhaps the only senior DoD official inside the Rumsfeld Pentagon who was a team player with State and NSC Staff. Among the senior officials within the Bush administration, with the possible exception of Rich Armitage, Wolfowitz had the most well-grounded knowledge of the complexities surrounding the triangular relationship between China, Taiwan, and the U.S. This dates back almost 20 years.
So WRT to his accepting the position as Chairman, U.S.-Taiwan Business Council? He not only will do great in that capacity, but he should be positioned to raise the stature of Taiwan within a Washington DC that seems to have forgotten that Taiwan exists. Except, of course, when there's a good excuse to slap around CSB or other senior Taiwan leaders whenever the chance comes up, and in all probability, same with newly elected President Ma as well. Turning down his visa request last month didn't start things off on the right foot, and there may well be a freeze on major arms sales as well. We'll find out in another few days....
Because there is no international body with teeth in it that can try countries and impose penalties on them that bite if they don't meet a set of rules. The UN certainly can't.
As a result, anyone, especially large countries, can decide what is legal without suffering major consequences. If I murder someone, and my neighbour calls it illegal, my neighbour's judgement holds little weight unless there is a body above who agrees and who can do something about it.
So you can call the war illegal if you like, but it will remain illegal from your perspective rather than universally so.
.
.
.
So you can call the war illegal if you like, but it will remain illegal from your perspective rather than universally so.
Don't listen to me. As I said, the war has been called illegal by neocon and Iraq invasion architect Richard Perle. It has also been called illegal by the president of the United Nations. But that's not important, I guess.
If the U.S. had the guts accept the International Court of Justice, it is most probable that many of the Bush administration officials -- including VP Cheney and Bush -- would be tried and convicted of war crimes.
Unfortunately, as you say, powerful countries such as the U.S. do not have the commitment to agree to an international body of justice. Instead, outrageous hypocrisy is allowed to exist which fatally compromises (among other things) the moral authority of the United States of America.
And it's high time Americans -- as well as their politicians -- begin to realize that there are consequences to thwarting international law other than involving the ICJ or UN. The blowback from the illegal Iraq invasion will affect generations of Americans to come (not to mention generations of other citizens around the world).
And some Americans have the gall to say "they hate us for our freedom".
.
.
.
Hmmm.... how did this soapbox arise?
Anyways, I agree with the sentiment that the best person for the job should be chosen regardless of who will be president next year. I can't argue with the explanation that Hammond-Chambers offered.
.
.
.
Anyways, I agree with the sentiment that the best person for the job should be chosen regardless of who will be president next year.
Should the best person for the job be a war criminal?
.
.
.
It is time for the people of Taiwan to rally around the invasion and occupation of Vanuatu, the greatest threat to Taiwan.
"It has also been called illegal by the president of the United Nations."
This is the same United Nations that won't let Taiwan join just because China wants to annex Taiwan?
You're right, it's not important what he says - or at least it shouldn't be. His job as a UN leader certainly gives him no moral standing to pronounce on legal and illegal.
So besides the whole Iraq war thing, where does Wolfowitz stand on Taiwan issues? While I see MT's point that he has a lousy resume, I'm more interested in what his views are on say KMT's collaboration with CCP, for example.
An interesting blurb on Wolfie:
Wolfowitz was Holbrooke's immediate successor in the top Asia slot at the State Department, serving there from 1982 to 1986. For the next three years he was US ambassador to Jakarta, and from 1989 to 1993 he was the "principal civilian responsible for strategy, plans, and policy under Defense Secretary Dick Cheney", according to his official biography. He has remained tightly linked to Indonesia through his role in the US-Indonesia Society, a private group funded by the largest US investors in Indonesia that, behind the veneer of "cultural exchanges", pushes for closer ties with Jakarta. Its past members have also included members of Indonesia's intelligence and military forces. Wolfowitz is also on several corporate boards, including Hasbro Inc, a major investor in Asian toy factories.
During his tenure in the Reagan and Bush administrations, Wolfowitz played a key role in defining US policy toward South Korea and the Philippines at a time of intense repression and growing opposition to authoritarian rule.
The UN doesn't have a president, genius. Nor will it ever have teeth so long as it is filled with so many countries of diametrically opposed viewpoints and even opposing constructed realities.
The UN has member states that deny the right of other member states to exist.
And, dearest Thomas, need I remind you of the breathtakingly short attention span of "world opinion"
How else could a country go from killing its own people in Tiananmen Square only to get the Olympics awarded to it a little over a decade later?
Post a Comment