The UN weapons inspection team has released its second report, stating that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. The report has failed to provide grounds for the US, the UK and Australia to attack Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime. The number of countries supporting the US has also decreased. Moreover, it has triggered large-scale anti-war movements across the world. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's administration was also forced to support extending the inspection work.
Perhaps US President George W. Bush's administration should have first done more introspection before committing itself to brashness. Why has it faced so many obstacles domestically and internationally? The problem lies in the Bush administration's diplomatic direction, rather than Saddam's excellent diplomatic skills. On the one hand, the Bush administration has pursued"unilateralism" ever since it came to power. It has taken the US interest as a priority while putting other countries' opinions aside.
On the other hand, the US relies on using forcefulness to solve the Iraq problem. Nevertheless, the price of war is too high. All other countries believe that they should stop Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction through the UN, and that they should not easily use force against Iraq if it's not absolutely necessary.
The Bush administration's insistence on using force against Iraq is self-injurious. First, US relations with many of its major allies have become tense today. France and Germany in Europe, as well as Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, have all been the US' important long-term allies. But these countries now have divergent views on the matter. Both the future operation of NATO and handling of Middle East affairs will be hampered if the US does not deal with the issue carefully.
Next, the global anti-terrorism alliance that the US put together after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks may split. Among the 15 UN Security Council members, France, Russia and China already oppose the US. Strong anti-US voices also surge from Europe to the Middle East and Southeast Asia. This will be a problem for the US war against terror in years to come.
The Bush administration is in a dilemma at the moment. If it insists on staging a war, it will be criticized for sending the army out without a righteous cause. This will worsen US relations with its allies and cause even larger-scale anti-war movements worldwide. But if it withdraws its army now, the US' prestige and credibility will be damaged.
Perhaps the Bush administration can do some damage control. The UN inspection work in Iraq has become more effective since the US sent its troops to the Persian Gulf region and threatened to overturn Saddam's regime. The Iraqi government has also made concessions and is now willing to cooperate with the UN inspection team, vowing to abide by the UN's ban on weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the US' tough stance has successfully helped reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and it has also maintained the UN's authority and dignity.
The Bush administration should renegotiate with the UN Security Council members so as to deploy more long-term weapons inspectors in Iraq. It should also deploy a portion of its troops in Iraq's neighboring countries and closely monitor Saddam's regime. Under such circumstances, not only will the Bush administration's withdrawal of troops not damage its prestige and credibility, but it will unite the US and its allies and avoid killing in the Persian Gulf region.
Wang Kao-cheng is an associate professor in the Department of International Affairs and Strategic Studies at Tamkang University.
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