In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the US, President George W. Bush's administration has made an admirable effort to confine the target of its counterattack to the specific groups that perpetrated the attack. By severing association between the attack and the Islamic world, the US demand for universal and unconditional support gains legitimacy.
This unconditional support should also be asked of China. Currently China has attempted to place conditions on its backing of anti-terrorist activities in exchange for US support for China's crackdown on "separatism."
The legitimacy of the US's counterattack comes from the urgent need to put an end to international terrorism so that innocent civilians will be able to live their lives without fear. It is wrong to think the US is the lone target of terrorism. Terrorism has already hit Europe, Africa, and of course the Middle East. Even Taiwan was once pinpointed by Osama bin Laden as early as 1995 in a protect titled "Project Bojinka" as a potential target for plane hijacking. The international nature of this problem means the world -- and China is no exception -- must give unconditional and unwavering support to the war on terrorism.
To seek worldwide solidarity, the Bush administration has made painstaking efforts to single out only those directly and indirectly responsible. After several public reiterations that only the terrorist groups, rather than the Islamic world, are the target of the US counterattack, Bush repeated the message during his speech to the US Congress on Friday. In fact, Bush has praised the Islamic religion as a religion of peace both during his meeting with the leader of the world's largest Islamic country, President Megawati Sukanoputri of Indonesia, and during an Islamic mass. Even President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, one of the only three countries in the world that recognizes the Taliban government, has said that "nobody is talking about a war against Islam or the people of Afghanistan." Therefore, virtually all Islamic nations support action against the terrorists.
At a time when the world is showing such unprecedented unity against terrorism, how ironic that China should suggest that its backing has a price. Then again, no one should be surprised by such extortion. After all, the world has witnessed how China perfected this art by holding US scholars hostage in exchange for US support for Beijing's hosting the Olympic Games and by holding foreign firms such as Credit Suisse First Boston hostage to keep them from having any contact with the Taiwan government. But then again, in view of China's historical "friendship" and arms sales to Afghanistan and terrorist groups, China must certainly feel reluctant about the war on terrorism.
China's kind of blackmail has a lot in common with terrorism in that, once the perpetrators' demands are met, they do it again, realizing the effectiveness of their methods. Having found how effective such tactics are, it is no surprise that China is using them again and again. If the US wants to stop this it has firmly to say no.
If the US caves in to China, however, it may trigger an avalanche of demands from other countries supporting its war on terrorism. How will it handle these demands and how will it face true friends who ask for nothing in exchange?
To a certain extent, China's kind of extortion is an evil no less than terrorism. It would truly be ironic if the world refuses to give in to terrorism but gives in to extortion.
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