Democracy and jungle law
During his visit to Taiwan, German theologian Jurgen Moltmann said something that, until March 20, I actually believed: there has not been any true democratic government in history that has begun a war. Before the US invasion of Iraq, it seemed to be a true statement.
When a people govern themselves democratically, war becomes difficult. Usually the majority will not lean towards aggression against another country. Diplomacy and compromise are chosen instead. There is too much to lose in a war.
When the US launched its attack, a big hole in this Moltmann's statement opened. What was supposed to be the leader of the free world initiated a war against another country for quite ambiguous reasons: owning, developing and trading weapons of mass destruction. Today there is no evidence of these weapons, but propaganda works, Nowa war to" liberate" the Iraqi nation from its "evil" leadership is coming to a close.
Quite a lot of people saw a hidden agenda: to gain control of Iraq's oil and get a foot hold in the Middle East influence and everything got even more confusing.
The new world order is not that different from the age of European empires. There is just one difference: the empire is now headed by the US. Just as with the Spainish, British, French, Dutch and German empires, the US empire has to exert fluence all over the globe. Even though some European nations have shown resistance to the coalition of three nations that invaded Iraq, they still want to have a part of Iraq's scraps.
Every empire has its dawn, zenith and dusk. This one will, too. I had a friend who told me that the Achilles' heel of her country, the US, is its own social disparities. It is the richest country in the world but also the one with greater inequality. There are expensive mega-prisons which are disproportionately composed of African-Americans and inner-city ghettos.
The promotion of democracy in the world and the UN system was aimed at building a league of equal nations, but it begun with a flaw. Some have more power in decision-making, vetoing and resource allocation and in the end, although it has been weakened, the real world continues using the only law that we all seem to respect: the law of the jungle. This is the law that the US seems to be following when dealing with other nations.
Francisco Carin Garcia
Taishan, Taipei County
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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