An editorial in today's New York Times comes out against Taiwan's request that America sell it four destroyers equipped with Aegis radar. "The sale of the Aegis radar system is not justified at this point and would be needlessly provocative," the Times declares. "Selling the Aegis would diminish, not increase, security across the Taiwan Strait."
This is an odd construction. It's unclear how arming a democracy would decrease security in the strait. Presumably the government of Taiwan, which is elected democratically, thinks that the destroyers would increase the security of its own people. Otherwise, Taiwan would not have asked America to sell it the weapons. The only entity whose security could possibly be diminished by the arms is Communist China. And it's unclear why the Times would want to be against diminishing the security of that unfree regime, which, as the Times' own news department reported recently on the newspaper's front page, is brutal to the point of harvesting organs from the prisoners it executes. So, either the Times is taking the position that it knows better than the Taiwanese what is best for Taiwan's security, or it is taking the position that it wants to increase the security of Communist China.
The notion that the Aegis-equipped destroyers would be "provocative" seems rooted in the notion that they "could be adapted to provide Taiwan with a limited shield against Chinese missile attack." This is the twisted logic of appeasement, New York Times-style: It is "provocative" for a democracy to be able to defend itself against an authoritarian Communist regime.
If America goes ahead with the sale, the Times warns, "Mr. Bush is likely to condemn his China policy to a sustained period of discord with Beijing." So what? The aim of America's foreign policy at its best isn't accord or discord but the spread of freedom and democracy and the peace and prosperity that are its consequences. America is going to be in discord with Beijing so long at the Communist leadership there is locking up journalists and labor union organizers, restricting religious freedom and banning non-Communist political parties. If the Times thinks such discord can be prevented by refusing Communist China's neighbors the arms it needs to defend itself, it's delusional.
Usual Suspects: An article in the "Dining In" section of this morning's New York Times reports on the commercial success of a book about the fast food industry. The Times says the book is compelling because it "is not just another screed from the usual suspects, like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the food police at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (movie popcorn equals death.)"
Oh yes, the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Funny, that organization was quoted on Sunday, March 18, 2001 in the lead, front-page article in the New York Times about food-borne illnesses. And in that news article it was identified not as the screed-issuing "usual suspects" or the "food police" but simply as "a nonprofit group." Guess you have to read the food section of the Times to make sense of the spin that's seeping into the front-page news coverage.
Late Again: The Times waddles in this morning with a front-page article on the controversy about David Horowitz's college newspaper advertisements opposing reparations for black Americans. How slow off the mark was the Times on this one? One clue is that the second paragraph of the story begins with the phrase "a few weeks ago"; another is that the front-page paragraphs of the story also include the phrases "last week" and "in recent weeks." Another clue is that Jonathan Yardley covered the matter thoroughly -- and well -- in his Washington Post column published March 5, 2001.