Next week, US President George W. Bush, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will meet on the cliffs of Normandy to mark the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasions that led to Europe's liberation. They should also seize the moment to liberate themselves from the bitterness that has divided the Atlantic alliance over the Iraq War.
When the US launched the war against Iraq, France and Germany rightly warned that the invasion could end up worsening instability in the Middle East and increase the threat of radical Islamic terror. But now that America and its coalition have proven themselves incapable of bringing stability to Iraq on their own, the French and German governments can no longer smugly say "I told you so" as the situation deteriorates even further. Both governments must become seriously and fully engaged in what must now be a united Western effort.
Of course, it would be best for everyone -- France and Germany included -- if the current US-led coalition were to succeed and Iraq could turn into a pillar of Middle East stability and modernization. However desirable this outcome, it is no longer likely (if it ever was). Internal stability and economic recovery continue to be elusive, with the specter of civil war hovering ever closer.
A divided Iraq at war with itself would be a disaster for the region, for America's international credibility and authority, and for transatlantic relations. In an already fragile region, a major Arab country like Iraq would likely prompt interventions by its nervous neighbors -- of which there is no shortage -- if it becomes a failed state.
Instead of the rule of law, there would be the law of the mafia, of terrorist groups and of tribal militias. Many of these forces are already in place. Instead of moving toward modernization and development, the region would be confirmed as a cockpit for conflict, a threat to itself and to the world beyond.
Were the US forced to withdraw in failure, Islamic militant groups would claim a historic victory, promising more bloodshed for the West. America might also once again retreat bitterly into isolationism, blaming its failure on the UN -- and on its estranged European allies.
The stakes are high in Iraq, for Europeans no less than for Americans. That is why it is time that even those who have been most skeptical about US policy in Iraq start to do something about it. Both Chirac and Schroeder have repeatedly pronounced that what happens in Iraq is a strategic challenge to their countries. Yet their actions in response to this insight have been modest.
The recent turmoil in Iraq has strengthened those in both nations who argue that there is now even less reason to get involved on the ground. At the very least, France and Germany are demanding that the Bush administration openly admit its failure and its need for help.
Yet not only is such a demand naive, with the Bush team battling for re-election, it is not at all certain that most of America's European allies would heed a US call for solidarity if one were issued. Confronting the threat that an unsettled Iraq poses to Europe and to transatlantic relationships implies stopping these tactical games. The passing of authority in Iraq from the US-led coalition to an Iraqi government and the need for a much stronger UN role offers the chance and imposes the need for everyone to stop posturing.
For their part, EU governments should provide the UN -- whose involvement in Iraq they have long insisted on -- with the protective force it needs to prepare for nationwide elections in Iraq later in the year, and should ask others to join the effort. A UN staff protected by US Marines simply cannot do that job. With the consent of both the US and Iraq's new leadership, EU governments should also offer to organize an international conference uniting all those with a stake in Iraqi stability, including Iraq's neighbors, to work out a strategy and commit resources in order to save Iraq from further protracted turmoil.
If Europe is to act, France and Germany must lead. Precisely because they opposed the war, they are the only countries that can restore Europe's unity of action in promoting stability. France professes to bear a special responsibility for international order, but so does Germany; only a few weeks ago, Schroeder based his claim to a permanent German seat in the UN Security Council on Germany's readiness to shoulder such responsibilities.
Of all the crisis regions in the world today, instability in Iraq constitutes the greatest challenge to international order. But France and Germany can block European responsibility for solidarity with a US facing possible defeat in Iraq. The decision is theirs. It is time for both to realize that the consequences of inaction will be no less severe for the region than for the Atlantic relationship.
Pierre Lellouche is a member of France's National Assembly and vice-chairman of NATO's Parliamentary Assembly. Christoph Bertram directs the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS