The entry of NATO forces into Macedonia raises yet one more time the vexing issue of the value of military intervention. No one, whatever their ideological position should wish this mission ill, but one must watch with bated breath to see if this deployment led by British troops ends up becoming counterproductive.
Doubters perhaps recall the Catholics of Northern Ireland welcoming deployments of British troops on the streets of Belfast with cups of tea, only to turn against them with savage viciousness, once it became clear that London was in no great hurry to change the political order of the Protestant ascendancy and the IRA became adept at provoking retaliation.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
Thirty years later the troops are still there and peace remains an elusive goal. Right now, the underdogs in Macedonia -- the Albanian minority -- are fulsome with praise at the arrival of NATO troops. But we wait to see if the tables will be turned if NATO responds to the understandable pressure from the Macedonian government to be rather more demanding in their weapons collection program. Besides, there are enough militants on the Albanian side who will not rest until there is a greater Albania, and it is in their interest to provoke both the Macedonian army and the Nato forces to the point that they visibly become an army of repression and intimidation.
Invariably with Western interventions we come back to the unanswered question: if decisions to militarily intervene are motivated by the quest for justice, why do the Western countries allow situations to deteriorate to such unspeakable injustice? It was a fair comment about the UK government in the 1960s, which had shunted Northern Ireland off the political map of the UK for the best part of half a century. It was the same over Kosovo when the NATO bombing of Belgrade started three years ago. NATO governments were the same governments that were willing to deal with Slobodan Milosevic's government during the break-up of the original Yugoslavia and ignored events in Kosovo until the violence had reached a critical mass.
If situations are allowed to deteriorate too far we should not naively expect that some latter-day military intervention could put things rapidly right. By the time the TV cameras arrive it is probably already too late.
Certainly this was the experience in Somalia. Eight years after the splendidly covered UN military intervention -- in which the US army, arriving on a well photographed beach, acted as an autonomous agent -- there is no functioning government and no judiciary. The unsuccessful attempts of the US Rangers to arrest one of the guerrilla leaders diverted them from the ostensible purpose of their mission. They killed and arbitrarily detained hundreds of Somali civilians, including children.
The point of all these horrendous examples is to underline the need for prevention. If we have our wits about us and not just our reactive impulses, we will observe that none of the human fights tragedies of recent years were unpredictable and perhaps not unavoidable. A year before the genocide in Rwanda, the UN special Rapporteur on Extrajudical Executions warned of what was to come.
For years before the Indonesian security forces ran amok in East Timor, Amnesty International had repeatedly exposed the Indonesian government's gross violations of human rights, and in the provinces of Aceh and Irian Jaya too.
Prevention work may be less newsworthy and more difficult to justify to the public than intervention in times of crisis. It requires the sustained investment of significant resources without the push from public opinion that happens when the media is rich with images of hardship, suffering and the wailing of the innocents. What are Western governments doing today about the new war that the bad man of West Africa, the Liberian leader, Charles Taylor, is stirring up in hitherto peaceful Ivory Coast? Or what about what Amnesty International calls the "culture of acquiescence" in Lebanon where the authorities appear to go along with the harsh treatment of women prisoners? Or what about the Indian government's apparent indifference to the plight of the "disappeared" and their grieving families in areas of local conflict, in particular in Kashmir, Manipur and Assam?
Being vigorous and attentive to human rights abuses means that governments must be prepared to condemn violations of human rights by their allies as well as their foes. It demands a halt to the sale of arms to human rights violators. It means, in this new age of universal jurisdiction, that there be no impunity for unscrupulous army and police commanders or the politicians who tolerate, excuse or even encourage their behavior.
Why should human rights activists be forced to choose because of the inertia of their governments between intervention and inaction? These are two forms of failure. Prevention is the answer. The problem is not lack of early warning, but early action.
Jonathan Power is a freelance columnist based in London.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry