At dinner with an American friend of mine and a Japanese acquaintance of his, an interesting conversation followed from the confusion expressed by the Japanese gentleman. Why, he wondered, should the English be so friendly with the Americans that they are fighting alongside them in the conflict in Afghanistan?
As an Englishman, I was interested that I had never considered whether the "special relationship" between Britain and America, as British politicians like to call it, was viewed as such by any other nation. It seemed, at least, that one Japanese was surprised by the chumminess being displayed in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
I am no hawk, and perhaps something of a cynic, which was why I was also given pause by the response I gave. There is a particularly crass kind of naivete in likening anyone we don't like to Hitler or Stalin, or any other favorite villain. But I think Hitler is a large part of the reason the British are there now.
Hitler and bin Laden have one crucial thing in common: they are not criminals in the darkness, admitting their evil by their attempts to conceal their action. They wrote and spoke clearly, lucidly, and given their own view of the world, coherently and intelligently about what they wanted to do. Hitler wrote his famous Mein Kampf (My Struggle), two words that have no doubt been used in Arabic by bin Laden time and time again. If indeed bin Laden is the perpetrator of the incidents of Sept. 11 then, like Hitler, he has done (and is doing) no more or less than he has told the world he wants to do.
The British, in particular, can see the repetition of history, because of what they did back in the 1930s in Europe, as they made moves to understand and contain Hitler's intentions. The Houses of Parliament discussed two policies in particular -- appeasement and conflict.
Appeasement was the baby of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who is now remembered for four words above all else. After meeting Hitler, he came back off the plane in Britain waving a piece of paper with his and Hitler's signatures and said that this paper meant "peace in our time." He was wrong. It didn't.
As the failure became more and more evident, culminating in the invasion of Poland, Chamberlain's position became untenable and Churchill and his supporters, who had been (and in some quarters still are) labeled war-mongers, ascended to fight the menace. Thank God they did.
Churchill is famous for saying: "To jaw jaw is better than to war war." But even so, he knew when the point had come to draw a line in the sand of the beaches of Europe and say, "Thus far, and no further."
The British tried appeasement, and tried conflict, with forces empowered by an intelligent man with a stated intent to destroy things that were valued by decent British people. Appeasement failed. Conflict succeeded, even if at a terrible price.
This is perhaps why, even as a cynic, I am not quick to say that British Prime Minister Blair's commitment to the Americans is politicking. Perhaps it is just the only thing he can do in good conscience after reading his history books.
I should say that I am skeptical as to the effectiveness of the campaign in Afghanistan. I should also say that if it is indeed ineffective, it is abhorrent. However, recently (continuing with all things British) I heard what I think were wise words from a learned English politician. He pointed out that piracy, which was in its time at least as ubiquitous as terrorism today, was and remains, defeated. And the thought that sponsored the defeat was not "let us understand the causes of piracy;" nor was it "how can we communicate with these people and try to reach a common understanding." Rather it was: "No cause justifies piracy. Therefore we will fight it by whatever means wherever we encounter it." The commitment was total and the implementation by nations was unified in intent. I believe greatly in understanding and communication, but I willingly admit the effectiveness of the conflicts against Hitler and against piracy.
The British may not like what they are doing in Afghanistan. Psychologically, one could argue, they are doing proportionally more than the Americans, since the attack was not on British soil. But many of us know that to do nothing and experience the not-unlikely consequences of inaction would be simply immoral. That there is such a sense in British politics, if I am right, is a thing to celebrate and, perhaps, something from which other nations of the world could learn.
Robin Koerner is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.
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