Sept. 11, 2001 is a day that will be remembered in the history of the world. Domestically, Americans will probably see heightened vigilance, while internationally, the US will be looking for revenge.
Terrorists hidden among the general population will make it difficult for the US to take the large-scale revenge that its excels in. The feeling of helplessness arising out of the difficulties in extracting revenge will highlight the absurdity of the National Missile Defense system at the same time as it displays the weakness of US security.
The result of heightened domestic vigilance may have an impact on the American way of life, the relaxed democratic atmosphere will also be hurt and the overall environment so conducive to creativity and the absorption of immigrants may be stifled. Both domestic and international reactions will further hurt the US' national image.
The US is still the only super power, but due to the feeling of decreased domestic security, its ability to attract international capital may also be hurt, creating severe changes to the US'
external trade relations. It may become even more difficult to predict the development of the US dollar exchange rate, leading to sluggish world economic activity. New York's position as the capital of world capitalism, which began after World War I, has been dealt both a material and a psychological blow by this terrorist act of war.
The blow dealt to the status of New York City does not, however, mean that someone else will be able to reap the benefits. Even though the scope of Europe's economy is similar to that of the US, it is not as politically strong as the US. This has been a drawback in the past, causing international capital to flow into the US and its bellwether currency.
This drawback may turn into an advantage -- since Europe is comparatively neutral on the international political stage, without the US' many enemies, Europe may be much safer, and owning European assets may be more profitable than US assets.
This may cause the euro to appreciate sharply, and this possibility could add to short-term instability in international capital markets. In the long term, however, European political weakness is still a factor for instability, and even though they have few enemies, they also have few ways of dealing with them. Political weaknesses will therefore inhibit Europe from assuming the US' dominant position.
China is another country that has the potential to absorb what the US loses. Following the shift in US attention and depreciation of US prestige internationally, China's international status will improve. At the same time, the Chinese market situation will seem even more attractive, and it may turn out to be the beneficiary of the Sept. 11 incidents.
The Chinese economy, however, does not have the scope needed to support the operations of the world market, implying that it will be several decades before China could effectively displace the US on the world stage.
Europe's political and China's economic weaknesses imply that the US' defeat only can lead to a loss of world order. Maybe, in the midst of such uncertainty -- and thanks to the development of information technology -- the capital of world capitalism will cease to be just one city, instead devolving to many different cities across continents.
As for the cross-strait relationship, the international situation following the attacks on the US will highlight the importance of establishing some kind of telephone hotline mechanism between the two sides.
Since the US will be busy with its own affairs, the source of security that Taiwan has been used to in the past has become unreliable. We can therefore no longer only rely on outside help in our search for security, and it has become even more important to decrease the factors of tension and insecurity across the strait.
Pao Chwen-liang is a PhD candidate at the Institute of East Asian Studies of National Chengchi University.
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath