War is never a good thing because it causes extreme privation and damages material and spiritual civilization. Yet there are times when war is unavoidable. The Iraq problem didn't develop overnight but has dragged on since 1991 because Iraq has frequently violated UN resolutions and has secretly developed weapons of mass destruction.
Every time a problem arises, the UN depends on the US to act as a "global policeman" before Iraq will begin to toe the line. But Iraq always reverts to its former behavior. This time they were cooperating with UN weapons inspectors only because they had been squeezed like a tube of toothpaste by intense US military pressure.
Without completely disarming the country and changing President Saddam Hussein's regime, there will be no solution to the problem. The UN has been powerless to solve the problem for over a decade. Now, is it not turning a blind eye on Saddam's evil-doing by hindering US actions? Moreover, the US declared war on terrorism after Sept. 11. Naturally, rogue states that fail to turn over a new leaf will become targets. Iraq is just one of these states.
The powerlessness of the UN is hardly limited to its performance on the Iraq problem. Does the UN really love peace so much? When China fired missiles into the Taiwan Strait, threatening to first destroy Taiwan and then rebuild it, did the UN step up and make any statements? Why didn't they urge Beijing to patiently use political means to solve the problem? What has the UN done to safeguard the rights of Taiwan's 23 million people or esnure that they are free of the terror stemming from China's military threat?
The UN has drafted two international human rights treaties, but what measures has it ever taken against those signatories that subsequently violated the treaties? China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has long trampled on human rights. What can the UN do? In recent years, China has intensified its efforts to suppress religion, especially by brutally handling Falun Gong practitioners, yet after a visit to Beijing, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he understood Beijing's actions. Is the UN not thus aiding a tyrant?
Even more strangely, the US, a country founded on principles of human rights, was once expelled from the UN Commission on Human Rights, while Libya, a country with an abysmal human rights record and numerous ties to terrorists, is the current chairman of the commission.
Confronted with Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal atrocities in Kosovo, the UN was also unable to act. In the end, it was necessary to depend on NATO, and NATO depended on the US, to apply military force to stop Milosevic and send him to the war crimes tribunal at the Hague.
The UN's indifference toward and even suppression of Taiwan is a well-known fact. Annan must bear some of the responsibility for this. Refusing to allow Taiwanese media organizations to report from within the UN completely disregards the principle of press freedom. If there is any representative of the Taiwanese media at all, it is only the World Journal, which is registered in the US. These restrictions weren't just imposed after the DPP came to power. It was like this early on in the KMT era and it stems from China's animosity toward Taiwan.
Since the UN is so impotent, its functions grow less relevant by the day. It is going the way of the League of Nations. Countries that uphold the universal values of freedom and human rights should step forward to form a new international organization to replace the UN and create a new world order. The US should lead this movement. Of course, at the beginning, the UN need not be discarded completely. It can be replaced gradually.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS