When the Iraq invasion was in full swing, it overwhelmed world news. The usual attention given to East Asia and the rest of the world was missing or at least subdued. Even the important confrontation generated by North Korea was usually buried in the back pages of the newspapers. It was all Iraq. Iraq is only a step in the broad strategy that the George W. Bush administration has set for itself, however.
There are two other events that deserve equal attention: the perhaps permanent weakening of the UN, and the broad implications of the spread of SARS from China. It is still too early to judge the impact of all three of these events on the shape of the 21st century. But clearly, we are entering an entirely new world.
America was, and remains, the principal target of terrorist attacks. Sept. 11, 2001 gruesomely awakened the country to the fact that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) can be available and used by any group or country directly against the US.
The result, a year later, was the publication by the White House of the National Security Strategy. Much of the attention this got in Taiwan's media was due to favorable comments about Taiwan and its democracy included in it. Those that follow international affairs throughout the world, including Taiwan, however, focused on the very fundamental change in US policy -- the need, and the right, to launch preemptive strikes against those who want to attack the US with WMD.
There are eight elements in the strategy paper: human rights, global terrorism, regional con-flicts, WMD, economic growth, democracy, coalitions and reform of national security institutions. The strategy paper was published last September, and one can already put events since then into many of these eight strategy elements. Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea have gained much public attention and are included in coalitions, regional conflict, WMD and terrorism. Pushing free trade agreements is another.
While there is wide support for active and cooperative counter-terrorism policies, few countries consider themselves major targets of terrorism. In addition, the question that naturally follows is who decides when, and against whom, such preemptive attacks should be made. The UN, obviously, was the most popular choice of the media and the general public.
The problem with depending on the UN was that it took considerable time just to get an agree-ment that Iraq had been operating for years in open violation of UN-sanctioned rules. There was some hope when Resolution 1441 was passed, but when it became time to enforce the rules by sanctioning an invasion by UN members, agreement could not be reached.
There will be books written about the US-led forces that invaded Iraq, and with time include what they accomplished. There will also be books written about the demise, or at least the fundamental weakening of the UN, as a result of its inability to resolve the differences between permanent members of the Security Council on this issue. It has become clear that the UN is not structured to deal with such a responsibility, and there has always been little support of making it so.
What we see now is only the beginning of America's new security strategy that will go far beyond the invasion of Iraq. Already the Bush administration has turned again to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And more recently there was a suggestion by President George W. Bush to pursue free trade agreements with countries in the Middle East.
Likewise, the question of the UN's role is yet to be debated. With the importance of all the special agencies that fall under the UN, it is more than likely the debate will center on adjusting or clarifying UN headquarters role and reforming its institutions than on abolishing it.
In the midst of this worldwide drama, SARS surfaced to generate yet another change in the way international affairs will be pursued in this new century. Only about 50 years ago, 30 million people in China were allowed to starve to death by its government rather than change a failed policy. There was no international uproar -- few outsiders even knew it was happening until years later.
When SARS was first noticed in China last year, the knee-jerk inclination that existed 50 years ago -- to suppress the information -- was still being practiced. As the government there now knows, it is no longer possible to do this.
This change is not based on a more liberal view of governance. The great strides in technology, the access to information and the necessity for transparency in managing a market economy, all make large-scale subterfuge far more difficult than in the past.
SARS at this point has had a major impact primarily on people in East Asia. It also has a noticeable impact on the politics of both Taiwan and China. The longer it remains a crisis, however, the more impact it will have on the economies beyond East Asia.
The extent to which the SARS crisis has influenced politics in China is less clear, though there is much speculation on the impact it will have on the third and fourth generation leadership there. In Taiwan, for a short time at least, it brought some unity in getting legislation passed and a degree of civility among the various political leaders.
The changed security strategy of the US, and the now questionable role of the UN, have both long-term and worldwide implications. SARS' implication on China's international standing following its poor handling of the initial stages of the crisis may take some time to overcome, while Taiwan's efforts to gain entry into the WHO have been strengthened. Whether they has been strengthened enough, however, is still an open question.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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