The Pentagon last week notified Congress of a proposed arms sale to Taiwan, worth $6 billion.
The weapons, including helicopters and anti-missile defences, are part of a package first pledged by the Bush administration.
China, which has hundreds of missiles pointed at Taiwan and has threatened to invade it in the past, considers the self-governed island a breakaway province, and reacted angrily to the arms sale, saying the move would "seriously damage" its US ties.
Taiwan split from China at the end of the country's civil war in 1949 and although the U.S. supports the democratic nation, it switched diplomatic recognition to China in 1979.
Although the latest arms package does not include any F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan highly desires, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said the sale would have a "serious negative impact" on co-operation between the US and China. In remarks published on the website of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, he said the Chinese government was "strongly indignant" about the arms sales.
Ties between China and the US are already strained by rows over trade and internet censorship.
U.S. Defense officials said sale would support Taiwan's "continuing efforts to modernise its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability" and that "the proposed sale will assist ... in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region."
The U.S is the leading arms supplier to Taiwan, also known as Formosa.
Be sure to read what FACEOFF columnists Charlie Meyer and Steve Smoot have to say on this subject and If you have something to say about it, send us a letter-to-the-editor at: letters@newstribune.info. We want to hear what you have to say.
FACEOFF POLL QUESTION: Should the U.S.sell arms to Taiwan?
The US Supreme Court earlier this month struck down a major portion of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law, saying it violates the free-speech right of corporations to engage in public debate of political issues. In a landmark 5-to-4 decision, the high court overturned a 1990 legal precedent and reversed a position it took in 2003, when a different lineup of justices upheld government restrictions on corporate political expenditures during elections.
“Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”
Reactions to the decision were strong, and like many issues these days, divided along party lines. Opponents say the ruling will open the gates for a flood of corporate spending in future elections. Labor unions are also expected to join the spending frenzy.
From the White House, President Obama called the ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky lauded the decision as “monumental.” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said he was pleased by the decision. “These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy,” he said.
(Source: Christian Science Monitor)
Be sure to read what FACEOFF columnists Charlie Meyer and Steve Smoot have to say on this subject and If you have something to say about it, send us a letter-to-the-editor at: letters@newstribune.info. We want to hear what you have to say.
FACEOFF POLL QUESTION: Do you support the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend freely on elections?
Snapshots offers high-quality color pictures taken throughout the year by our award-winning photographers. You’ll also find newspaper page reprints and gift items.