Dear Editor,
On November 3, the Washington Post reports, “fast-fashion” retailer Shein banned sales of sex dolls on its site after a government regulatory agency threatened to bar the company from operating in France and referred it to prosecutors. Some of the dolls sold on Shein's online platform were, it seems, too “childlike” in appearance.
I consider it lazy to assert, as many opinionators do, that “no one” supports, or “everyone” wants, this or that particular thing, but if there’s a subject that commands anything close to societal unanimity, it’s opposition to the sexual molestation of children.
Pretty much all of us who aren’t sexual abusers of children want sexual abusers of children stopped and punished. Many even advocate capital punishment as a permanent individual solution and future collective deterrent, and while I’m opposed to the death penalty myself, I do find the opinion understandable.
It’s odd, then, that so many opponents of child molestation also advocate for laws which increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood that someone with such tendencies will act, in that way, on those tendencies.
Or is it really that odd? These days, public opinion – followed by legislative and law enforcement attitudes – seems largely driven by moral panic. Many people don’t want to just stop actual harmful Activity X, but also want government to suppress anything which might activate the “ick factor” associated with seeing, hearing, or thinking about topics adjacent to Activity X.
Thus the increasing tendency toward banning “child pornography” in which no actual children are involved, and “childlike” sex dolls that, whatever else they may be, are not actual children.
If we want to see actual reductions in the incidence of child sexual abuse, it’s worth considering what economists call the “substitution effect.” Per the Corporate Finance Institute, that effect is the “change in demand for a good as a result of a change in the relative price of the good compared to that of other substitute goods.”
A vanilla example, literally: Suppose you like vanilla ice cream. A scoop of vanilla ice cream made with real vanilla costs $1. A scoop made with artificial vanilla flavor costs 50 cents. You prefer saving 50 cents and putting up with artificial flavor. But suppose the price of the artificial version goes up? If it’s 75 cents or 80 cents or 90 cents, you’re more likely to pay just a little bit extra for the real thing.
I don't keep track of sex doll prices, but so long as they’re legal, they’re presumptively “cheaper” than long prison sentences, mandatory sex offender registration and the handicaps that come with it, maybe even “chemical castration”. Some potential child molesters will opt for the lower “price” of the doll.
Making “childlike” sex dolls illegal brings their “price”, in non-monetary terms, closer to the “price” of actually molesting a child. That, to at least some degree, incentivizes potential child molesters to become actual child molesters.
So, do we want fewer or more child molesters? If the former, we'll stop letting moral panic drive our legal and political demands.
Thomas L. Knapp
~ In commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Taiwan’s restoration ~
This year marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and the 80th anniversary of the restoration of Taiwan, China. A few days ago, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China set October 25 as Commemoration Day of Taiwan’s Restoration, and stipulated that commemorative activities in various forms can be held, which fully reflects the historical fact that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.
Some friends may not know much about Taiwan question, so I would like to introduce its origin and nature and the correct attitude we should take on it.
The statement that Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times has a sound basis in history. The earliest Chinese historical records about Taiwan can be traced back 1800 years ago. Since then, the central governments of China gradually strengthened the administrative bodies to exercise jurisdiction over Taiwan. In 1885, Taiwan was the 20th province of China.
However, in the late Qing Dynasty, due to the invasion of foreign powers and the corruption of feudal rule, the Chinese nation suffered an unprecedented calamity. In 1894, Japanese launched an aggression war against China, and Taiwan and Penghu Islands as well were ceded by Qing government of China to Japan.
Taiwan question arose from a weak and divided China in the history, but the Chinese nation has never given up its struggle for sovereignty and dignity.
The question of Taiwan’s status was fundamentally resolved on October 25, 1945, when the Chinese people won the great victory of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. On that day, the Chinese government, which was called then as the government of the Republic of China (ROC), announced the “resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan” and held the “Surrender Ceremony of Taiwan Province in the China War Zone” in Taipei.
The restoration of Taiwan was an important achievement of the victory in the War of Resistance against Japan and an important part of the post-war international order. This victory was won by the Chinese people including our Taiwan compatriots through hard-fought battles and great sacrifices. It shall by no means be undermined by the false narratives of some western politicians.
Shortly after Taiwan’s restoration, China’s civil war and external interference made the two sides of the Taiwan Strait into a prolonged state of political confrontation. But the fact remains unchanged that Taiwan has never been an independent country.
In 1949, the Chinese people overthrew the ROC government, renamed the country the People’s Republic of China (PROC), and established the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. It was the replacement of the old government by the new one, while China, as a subject of international law, stayed unchanged; and China’s sovereignty and inherent territorial boundaries stayed unchanged. Thus the government of PROC naturally and fully enjoys and exercises China’s sovereignty, including sovereignty over the Taiwan region.
The one-China principle is a fundamental norm of international relations and a universal consensus of the international community. The Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other documents of international law all recognized Taiwan, which was stolen by Japan, must be returned to China. In 1971, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758, making it clear “to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations.”
This resolution settled once and for all the political and legal issues of China’s representation in the UN, so there is no such thing as “two Chinas”, “one China, one Taiwan” or “Taiwan Independence”. It was clearly stated in the official legal opinions of the Office of Legal Affairs of the U.N. Secretariat that “the U.N. considers ‘Taiwan’ as a Province of China with no separate status” and the “‘authorities’ in ‘Taipei’ are not considered to … enjoy any form of government status.” To date, 183 countries have established and developed diplomatic relations with China on the basis of the one-China principle.
The Taiwan issue must be resolved by the Chinese people ourselves. Although the Taiwan question has existed for more than 70 years, the shared history, culture, national responsibility, and future aspirations of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have never been severed. Every one of the 23 million people in Taiwan is a member of the Chinese nation.
As long as both sides of the Taiwan Strait recognize that they are Chinese, we can exchange talks and build consensus for the complete reunification of China. The Taiwan question arose from the weakness of the Chinese nation, and it will inevitably be resolved with the rejuvenation of the nation.
Zhang Kaibin
Consul General People's Republic of China
Dear Editor,
The recent court verdict ordering former Member of Parliament and Minister Mr. Theo Heyliger to pay 92.1 million guilders marks yet another painful chapter in our nation’s ongoing struggle against corruption and abuse of public trust. The judgment confirmed that the acts committed by Mr. Heyliger caused grave damage to Sint Maarten’s reputation and its economic development.
While this verdict was directed at Mr. Heyliger personally, its moral and financial implications extend far beyond him alone. His spouse, Mrs. Grisha Heyliger-Marten, currently serves as both Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT). Their marriage, solemnized in community of goods, means that both assets and liabilities are shared between them. In light of this legal reality, the weight of this court ruling inevitably bears heavily upon the Deputy Prime Minister herself.
This situation cannot be viewed merely as a private family matter. It strikes at the heart of public integrity and the principle of accountability that should guide all who hold public office. The people of Sint Maarten have endured too many blows to their confidence in government. Every scandal, every conviction, every unanswered question erodes the fragile trust between citizens and the institutions meant to serve them.
In the spirit of good governance, and with respect for the office she holds, it must be said plainly:
Mrs. Heyliger-Marten’s continued service as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of TEATT creates an unavoidable conflict of interest not only in a legal sense, but in the public perception of integrity.
A Deputy Prime Minister is not only a policymaker; she is a symbol of Sint Maarten’s moral standing, the face of our island in regional councils, international meetings, and global partnerships. When the spouse of such an official has been found liable for serious wrongdoing and financial misconduct, the optics are deeply damaging. How can Sint Maarten credibly speak of transparency, investment, and reform while this shadow looms over one of its highest offices?
To continue in these roles under such circumstances risks undermining the very principles that the office should uphold. This is not a question of guilt by association it is a matter of leadership, credibility, and moral example.
It is therefore both reasonable and necessary to call upon Mrs. Heyliger-Marten to do what is honorable and right: to resign from both functions, and most especially from the office of Deputy Prime Minister. Such a decision would not be a sign of weakness or concession to critics. On the contrary, it would demonstrate strength of character, respect for the people, and an unwavering commitment to the values of honesty and accountability in public life.
By stepping down, Mrs. Heyliger-Marten would show that no individual, regardless of position or political standing, is above the standards that good governance demands. She would affirm that the nation’s integrity comes before personal or political interest, and she would set an example that future leaders will remember with respect.
In this same spirit, it is incumbent upon the Parliament of Sint Maarten and the Council of Ministers to uphold their constitutional duty to safeguard the integrity of government. They must not remain silent or passive in the face of such a serious moral dilemma. The people deserve clarity and decisive action. The question must therefore be asked and answered publicly: Will Parliament and the Council of Ministers call upon Minister Heyliger-Marten to resign in the interest of good governance and national credibility?
Sint Maarten deserves leadership that is beyond reproach – leadership that restores dignity to government, confidence to citizens, and pride to our representation abroad.
This is a moment to put principle before politics, and country before self.
Let integrity lead the way.
Alfred A. Bryan
Dear Editor,
More and more people are bringing their grievances to me, hoping that I would write something about it. I am very aware of those grievances and agree with them but I would like for more people to openly voice their opinion because, not so long ago we have read that more than 20 postponed meetings are still pending.
More proof that nothing is being done while government has been paying out XCG four to five million per month during all those months while absolutely nothing has been done and still is not being done.
This reminds of a saying with the word “brassface”.
The next point is nothing new to me because the schoolchildren have always proven to be on the right track and right now the schoolchildren are in doubt if anything will be done to put back the “Haitian vendors” where they were.
I personally am not ready to voice my opinion on that situation. What I know is that there are talks that people are of the opinion that government is gradually knowingly turning Philipsburg into ghost town. I do not know if I am ready to join anyone in going there, but my question would be: “Is there enough love for country, to keep Sint Maarten in the hands of indigenous Sint Maarteners?”
Talking about ghost town, are we aware that the first batch of tourists who arrive by cruise ships goes by bus directly to different places on the French side? And that it is until after two o'clock that we see tourists in the Front Street? Is the government of Sint Maarten aware that there is nowhere in the Front Street where delivery vehicles can stop/park to deliver goods for the businesses?
Is government aware that even the tourists who have rental cars are aware that they cannot stop nor park in the Front Street and that they find themselves obliged to leave someone in their rental car to avoid being towed away?
Simply because their rental cars have been towed away because they do not know where to find parking. They see other cars parked on the sidewalk and do the same, to return and find that their car was towed away.
My question concerning this is, if others can notice this should not those in government hear about this? Are not there department heads who should stay abreast of what is happening on Sint Maarten or are they also of the opinion that if the others can collect without working, they can do the same?
The Prime Minister self said that nothing doing and along with that, now we know that more than twenty meetings which were postponed have not been reconvened.
By the way, tourists are still driving in forbidden directions because some traffic signs in my opinion are carelessly placed as well as lacking.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
As negotiators struggle to maintain the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as tensions escalate over Venezuela's disputed waters, and as great powers jostle for influence across the Pacific, an ancient warning echoes through the centuries. In 83 AD, before Roman legions crushed Scottish resistance at Mons Graupius, the chieftain Calgacus reportedly declared: “They create a desert and call it peace.” Whether Calgacus actually spoke these words or the Roman historian Tacitus invented them matters less than their enduring truth. They describe a pattern that has persisted from Roman Britain to modern Iraq, from colonial Africa to contemporary Afghanistan: the powerful destroying in the name of order, then declaring victory over the ruins.
Calgacus described the Roman method with brutal clarity. The empire was driven by greed no territory could satisfy. “Robbery, butchery, rapine, the liars call Empire,” he declared. And then: “They create a desert and call it peace.” Rome claimed to bring civilization – Calgacus saw exploitation. Rome promised security – he saw subjugation. Rome spoke of law and order – he saw villages burned and populations enslaved. The Romans would call their conquest pax Romana. Calgacus saw only the desert left behind. The battle was a slaughter. Rome declared victory and called it peace. Tacitus himself seemed sympathetic to the critique, perhaps because he had seen enough of empire to recognize the gap between its rhetoric and its reality.
The modern playbook
The pattern is remarkably consistent. A crisis emerges – real or manufactured. Leaders declare that “something must be done.” Military action is presented as the only serious option, with diplomatic alternatives dismissed as appeasement or weakness. The intervention will be quick, we’re assured. Technology will ensure precision. Democracy will flourish.
Consider the record: In Iraq (2003), we were promised a swift victory and grateful liberation. Twenty years later, after 4,400 American deaths, over 200,000 Iraqi civilian casualties, and $2 trillion spent, the country remains fractured and unstable. In Libya (2011), NATO's intervention to prevent a humanitarian crisis created a failed state that became a breeding ground for extremism and a hub for human trafficking. In Afghanistan (2001-2021), the longest war in American history ended with the Taliban's return to power, despite 176,000 deaths and $2.3 trillion in costs. Yet each time, the same arguments resurface. Each time, we're told this intervention will be different.
The language of deception
The machinery of intervention requires careful language. We don't bomb – we conduct “kinetic actions.” We don't kill civilians – we create “collateral damage.” We don't occupy – we “nation-build.” These euphemisms serve a purpose: they make the unpalatable acceptable, the violent sanitary. This linguistic sleight of hand extends to how we frame choices. Military action becomes synonymous with “doing something,” while diplomacy, sanctions, and international pressure are recast as “doing nothing.” This false binary – bomb or abandon – ignores the patient work of conflict resolution that, while less telegenic than missile strikes, often proves more effective.
The desert emerges
The desert doesn’t appear immediately. In the first flush of victory, with statues toppling and leaders declaring “mission accomplished,” the intervention seems justified. But deserts grow in the aftermath. They manifest as power vacuums filled by extremists more brutal than those they replaced. As infrastructure destroyed in days that takes decades to rebuild. As generations radicalized by grief – a UN study found that 71% of recruits to extremist groups in Africa cited government action, including the killing of a family member, as their primary motivation. The desert is Syria’s 13 million refugees and internally displaced persons. It’s the 37 million people displaced by America’s post-9/11 wars. It’s Yemen’s cholera epidemic amid bombardment, Somalia’s cycle of intervention and chaos, the Sahel’s expanding instability following Libya’s collapse.
When intervention might be justified
This critique shouldn’t obscure the genuine dilemmas faced by policymakers. Rwanda’s genocide in 1994, where 800,000 died as the world watched, haunts the international conscience. The siege of Sarajevo, the massacres in Darfur, the use of chemical weapons against civilians – these horrors pose real moral challenges. Military intervention isn’t always wrong. The NATO intervention in Kosovo arguably prevented ethnic cleansing. The UN intervention in Sierra Leone helped end a brutal civil war. The international coalition against ISIS prevented genocide against the Yazidis. The question isn’t whether force should never be used, but whether we’ve honestly reckoned with its limitations and consequences. Too often, military action becomes the first resort rather than the last, driven more by domestic politics and the illusion of control than by clear strategic thinking.
Breaking the cycle
What would a different approach look like? First, it would require humility about military force’s ability to reshape complex societies. Second, it would demand serious investment in diplomatic capacity – the U.S. military budget exceeds the State Department’s by a factor of 15. It would mean strengthening international institutions rather than undermining them when convenient. It would require patience – accepting that some conflicts require generation-long engagement rather than election-cycle solutions. It would demand addressing root causes: poverty, injustice, and governance failures that create conditions for conflict.
Most importantly, it would require honest accounting. When interventions fail, we must acknowledge failure rather than rebranding it as success. When we create refugees, we must accept responsibility rather than treating the crisis as someone else’s problem. When our actions radicalize populations, we must recognize our role rather than expressing surprise at the “inexplicable” hatred directed toward us.
The eternal choice
Calgacus lost his battle against Rome. His warning, preserved ironically by his conquerors, outlasted their empire. Today, as new crises emerge and familiar voices call for military solutions, his words pose an uncomfortable question: Will we keep creating deserts and calling them peace? The pattern isn’t inevitable. We choose it, crisis by crisis, intervention by intervention. We choose it when we accept false urgency over patient diplomacy, when we mistake destruction for resolution, when we prioritize the politically expedient over the morally necessary.
Two millennia after Mons Graupius, the fundamental challenge remains unchanged: Can we resist the seductive simplicity of force and embrace the complex work of genuine peace? Or will future historians, surveying the deserts we leave behind, wonder why we never learned? The powerful have always dressed up conquest as liberation, violence as order, domination as peace. The genius of the formulation is that it names both the act and the lie. Not just that Rome creates a desert, but that it calls it peace.
The answer lies not in ancient Scotland but in the choices we make today, tomorrow, and in every crisis to come. Each time we’re told that bombs will bring peace, we face Calgacus’ question anew. Each time, we can choose differently. An updated version of Calgacus’ words might be, “they create deserts with members-only oases and call it development.”
Professor C. Justin Robinson
Pro Vice-Chancellor and Principal, The UWI Five Islands Campus
