The weapons inspectors of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission have so far found no illicit weapons in Iraq. This has further complicated the US' position on Iraq. The US has not softened its stance toward its former ally, continuing to threaten Iraq with military action. Although Washington gets satisfaction from venting its anger like this, it will not solve the differences between the two countries.
After the Sept. 11 incident, Washington launched a global war against terrorism. US President George W. Bush also accused Iran, North Korea and Iraq of being an "Axis of Evil" that undermines world peace and supports terrorist actions.
But Iraq has rich reserves of oil. The US military action has therefore been called an attempt to take control of the oil reserves of the Middle East -- or an assertion of US dominance in the post-Cold War era. Faced with the mistrust of the international community, the US had to agree to solve the problem within the UN framework -- for now. But it also stressed that Iraq will face very serious consequences if Baghdad does not abide by the UN resolutions.
The US has not slowed down its current military deployments, continuing to send troops to the Persian Gulf region. Although Washington claims that it is reluctant to use force to solve the problem -- and that it hopes the matter can be handled peacefully -- most observers believe that a US attack on Iraq is inevitable in light of Washington's recent actions. Washington, they say, is simply waiting for a reasonable excuse and an appropriate moment for the attack.
Facing the US government, however, Iraq has -- surprisingly -- cooperated, so as not to give the US any excuse to attack. It seems that the harsh attitude of the US and the compliance of Iraq have gradually changed the world's impression of both sides. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has suddenly turned from a dictator into a leader who longs for peace, while Bush has turned from the leader of the free world into a "warmonger." Perhaps the high support ratings that Bush enjoys in the US are a result of the Sept. 11 attacks, which hardened the consciousness of the American people. But the Americans don't unanimously support Bush's Iraq policy.
As a peace activist, I believe that to wage war is to destroy peace. Every war in history caused many casualties -- most of them innocent civilians. Decision-makers can usually determine the fate of tens of millions of people in only a few seconds. As the Chinese say, "One general achieves renown over the dead bodies of 10,000 soldiers."
Although I support Washington's anti-terrorist actions, I'm strongly opposed to its current method of meeting violence with violence.
The US should put aside its hatred and adopt some humility. It should negotiate with Iraq in a more peaceful manner, or even through the UN, in order to avoid conflict between different civilizations.
Chien Hsi-chieh is the executive director of the Peacetime Foundation of Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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