US President George W. Bush has finally issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, saying that Baghdad's leader and his sons must leave the country or face war. Countries around the world have expressed their support or opposition, but no matter how divergent opinions, everyone knows that less than three years into the new millennium, a large-scale international war looks inevitable.
France, which has been the most vehement opponent of the US plan to resolve the quarrel over Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction by force, immediately condemned the announcement, saying that the US government's goal is to overthrow Saddam's regime.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said that a US-led war will lose legitimacy without the UN Security Council's authorization.
Russia believes that the 1990s UN resolution cited by Bush does not give Washington the right to take military action.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri described Bush as a lunatic warmonger who should step down immediately to pay for his sins.
Of course, amid this fierce criticism countries such as the UK, Spain and Australia are supporting the US decision. They are also asking the US to finish its anti-terrorist job once and for all by ousting a regime that colludes with the al-Qaeda terrorist group and may use chemical and biological weapons against humanity. We can see the deep division between the advocates and opponents of US military action.
US military action against Iraq began in 1991, when Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. However, even though then-US president George Bush won the war, he did not have the determination to remove Saddam's regime. The elder Bush thus left behind a scourge for his son's administration to handle by way of unilateral military action in the face of mounting criticism. Even if the war begins, it has already cost the US its image as the guardian of world peace. Casualties from the war may also lead to terrorist retaliation, harming innocent people. Such casualties will be hard to estimate.
However, Saddam is facing US and British pressure because of what he did in the past. Apart from the persecution of dissidents, he also used chemical and biological weapons against Iran as well as Iraq's own Kurdish minority. His reckless invasion of Kuwait and setting fire to Kuwaiti oil fields make it impossible for the world to sympathize with him.
In a matter of hours, the world situation will change. Even if US and and British troops successfully oust Saddam, the war may also stoke up hostility between Christian and Muslim nations. A clash of civilizations centered around religious conflict may become a reality in the 21st century, bringing endless conflict and disaster.
To avoid this looming war, we can only call on Bush to rein-in his horse on the edge of the precipice, and to give the UN weapons inspectors more time to do their jobs, and ease concerns about Iraq's concealed weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise, unless Saddam accepts exile, humanity must bear the consequences of this war with a heavy heart.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95