In the grand drama of governing post-Saddam Iraq, what role will the UN play? More to the semantic point, what modifier of that noun role most accurately defines -- or obfuscates or sugarcoats -- the part that the international agency will play? (Note that I have strained to substitute part for the overused figure of speech, role to play, but cannot avoid the theatrical metaphor of some character playing a part.)
The adjective President George W. Bush chose, with great care and after much advice, is "vital." What does he mean by that modifier? "I view a vital role as an agent to help people live freely," he said. "That means food; that means medicine; that means aid; ...that means being a party to the progress being made in Iraq." Pressed for elaboration by reporters, Bush tried to show associated effort: "When we say vital role," he explained, "that's precisely what we mean -- that they will be involved." Not so precise; pressed further, he stated with emphasis, "A vital role for the UN means a vital role for the UN."
That begs the semantic question. (No, it does not pose or raise a question; it defines a word with itself, no definition at all.) This is akin to a technique pioneered by Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty, who said, "A word means just what I choose it to mean," and was carried on by Elzie Segar's Popeye the Sailor, a 1930s cartoon character who liked to state with great certainty, "I yam what I yam and that's what I yam."
Why did Bush -- followed by Secretary of State Colin Powell and other explicators of American foreign policy -- choose the word vital? That adjective -- from the Latin vita, "life" -- has a primary meaning of "essential to existence," by extension "absolutely indispensable" and, as the O.E.D. puts it, "in a wider sense, of supreme importance."
Finesse needed
But that was surely not the meaning Bush had in mind. The question he addressed was not "Who's on the team in Baghdad?" or "Who will be 'involved' in the coalition of the belatedly helpful?" Rather, the gut question is "Who is running Iraq?" Who is boss, final authority, top dog, in charge, ultimately responsible?
That's a diplomatic issue requiring linguistic finesse. By taking the word vital to mean "involved," the president strips it of some of its vitality. By placing it in a well-worn phrase of participation rather than leadership -- vital role -- he reduces its centrality further, indicating a part rather than the whole. Finally, by his choice of the indefinite article "a" -- in a vital role, not the vital role -- Bush takes the meaning of the modifier another step down from its dictionary definition "of supreme importance." Such a triple evisceration of puissance is the hat trick in the reconstitution of meaning.
On CNN, Robin Oakley took a crack at the modification of role with "although George Bush and Tony Blair have talked repeatedly of making it a `vital' one, EU nations suspect the US in particular of wanting to palm off the UN with little more than a humanitarian-aid function." Javier Solana, the EU's chief foreign policy official, put the European desire to avoid a subsidiary position in a way that tried to counter Bush's semantic ploy: "We want a role for the UN, a role that you can qualify semantically -- vital, central, whatever terminology you want to use. The important thing," Solana said, "is the quality of the engagement of the UN."
Since semantic qualification is my dodge, let's get down to the terminological vitals. Set diplomatic niceties aside: In examining vital's modification of role, we delve into the synonymy of dominance.
Dominant, though not so pejorative as domineering, has too harsh a connotation for use in diplomacy. Predominant is less bossy, meaning "ascending toward being most influential," but still is rooted in that lordly "dom."
No supremacy
Supreme, from the Latin for "super, above," is still used in "supreme commander" of NATO forces but is too strong to go with the modest noun role. Principal invites misspelling as principle, and leading too specifically relegates the US and Britain to being the UN's followers. Paramount is "of supreme importance," but you don't hear much of a paramount role because it evokes an idea of a part in a movie produced by a division of Viacom.
Central, offered tentatively by Solana, has the advantage of being "at the hub of all activity," controlling it coolly from the middle but not heavily from the top. "EU leaders agree on one thing," commented Deutsche Welle, German government radio, "the central role of the UN in Iraq's reconstruction." Deutsche Welle also put that as "a pivotal role in the reconstruction."
A pivot is an axis on which something turns; secretary of state Dean Acheson referred to Harry Truman as "the president as the pivotal point, the critical element in reaching decisions on foreign policy." That's a good word to suggest decision-making power, more firmly fixed than focal but also suggesting a possibility of a turnaround in policy.
Bush and his advisers evidently thought that vital, when somewhat deadened by the article a and further modified by role, would do the trick of getting countries on board without getting noses out of joint. The phrase implies significant participation without conferring too much importance. Certainly a vital role does not suggest giving supremacy to the Security Council, which did not approve the coalition's invasion.
Thus, in its most current sense, a vital role no longer means "one that is absolutely essential." In international diplolingo, it means "important, helpful, welcome participation in a common effort" as it tries to show profound respect without revealing underlying condescension.
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 Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
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