综合一区欧美国产,99国产麻豆免费精品,九九精品黄色录像,亚洲激情青青草,久久亚洲熟妇熟,中文字幕av在线播放,国产一区二区卡,九九久久国产精品,久久精品视频免费

The United States may "trust in God," but the word of its administration is not to be trusted.

On Monday, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher stated in a briefing that the Bush administration has agreed to allow Taiwan "president" Chen Shui-bian to make transit stops in New York and Houston on his way to and from Latin America.

The administration went even further by allowing Chen to make politically provocative arrangements in the name of transit stopovers in the United States. It is reported that he will meet the mayors of the two cities and members of the US Congress.

American hawkish politicians have hailed it a "breakthrough" in US relations with the island.

The US Government should know how untrustworthy it has become and what message it has sent to Taiwan.

It is a despicable breach of trust and commitment.

That it was in the United States national interest is the explanation Boucher gave for arranging the so-called "private meeting" between US members of Congress and "foreign leaders."

Unmindful of the fact that Taiwan is part of China, the United States keeps claiming that to "defend" the island is in its interest.

Allowing Chen to stay in the United States and meet US lawmakers is the latest example in a growing list of US provocations directed at China.

The US president told the world that he is a man of his word. Last month he confirmed his support for the one-China policy.

But his words came only after he had said in a television interview that he would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself," including employing the full force of the US military. He later backed off the reference to the use of direct military force.

Regardless of whether it was a calculated expression or a slip of the tongue, Bush's manifestation of strong support for Taiwan is dangerous, as it can serve the interests of the separatist elite on the island.

Taiwan's mainland policy chief Tsai Ing-wen has reportedly stated that Taiwan has been continuing to pursue its statehood, although avoiding the use of the term "two states."

An unspoken pro-independence policy is what the Taiwan authorities have been pursuing.

US hawkish politicians have ritually invoked the "Taiwan Relations Act" as the justification for their country's frivolous meddling in Taiwan affairs.

They mindlessly parrot the line that "The 'Taiwan Relations Act' means America has a legal and moral obligation to defend Taiwan."

This is a plain subterfuge.

The "Taiwan Relations Act," enacted on April 10, 1979, was a bill of the US Congress. It is domestic US legislation, not an international treaty.

That such domestic US legislation, passed without the participation or consent of an independent foreign nation, infringes on a foreign nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It does not make sense or come from a supposedly responsible member of the international community.

Some people in the US Congress are too forgetful of how their founding fathers fought the Confederates in the 1860s.

Would the United States have accepted a bill sanctioned by a foreign country on Abraham Lincoln's suppression of the southern secession?

The "Taiwan Relations Act" and the "Taiwan Security Enhancement Act" are nothing more than the flimsiest pretext for US interference in China's internal affairs.

These unilateral acts, backed up by actions like approval in April of a sizable arms sales package to Taiwan, manifest the muscle the US politicians are too prone to flex.

The mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, written in the three Sino-US joint communiques, should not be binding only on China.

The communiques call for nonintervention in each other's internal affairs and mutual accommodation to work for the mutual benefit on issues of common interest.

The Taiwan question is the essence of the three documents. These bilateral agreements set the course that both sides should follow in their bilateral relations.

The United States has time and again reaffirmed its commitment to the communiques and reiterated its insistence on recognizing only one China, and its opposition to "two Chinas," "one China, one Taiwan" and "Taiwan independence."

But action is the best measure of sincerity.