Britain is braced for US President George W. Bush's arrival. London police leave has been cancelled, and the Stop the War Coalition is planning demonstrations and civil disobedience to "unwelcome" the president.
The highlight will be the toppling, Saddam-style, of a Dubya statue in Trafalgar Square.
Although Bush will not move into his guest suite at Buckingham Palace until Nov. 19, the action starts tomorrow when protesters will be burning him in effigy. For activists lacking the necessary skills, the coalition's website offers a DIY Dubya mask.
"Print George and photocopy him on to A3 paper or card," the instructions read. "Color and bend him to your satisfaction, and attach him to a guy [effigy] of your own choosing." Burning George, it promises, will generate "a warm feeling."
But not, naturally, the comforting glow that British Prime Minister Tony Blair envisaged when planning the first state visit by a US president. By now, weapons of mass destruction should have been secured, Iraq should be a secular democracy, and Bush should be emblazoned in glory rather than torched in paraffin.
Instead, the president has placard trouble. At home, he is haunted by the "Mission Accomplished" banner strung behind him on the USS Abraham Lincoln when he declared the Iraq war over. Now he is pretending, not quite accurately, that it was all the navy's idea, rather than the White House's. Over here, hubristic slogans are not the problem. The "Make Tea Not War" posters of the prewar marches are already being replaced with something pithier.
Peace is slippery to define. To Samuel Johnson, it was the product of mutual cowardice. To Cicero, it was liberty in tranquility. Now it means "Fuck Bush" banners and presidential pyres for bonfire night. This is the Turner Prize of protest, featuring Stop the War activists as the Chapman Brothers of mass action. The forthcoming civil disobedience will be non-violent, organizers stress, but the whiff of brutalism conjures up a world where no such caveat is feasible.
More military staff have now died in Iraq during the postwar period than in the invasion, and violence increases. Suicide-bomb attacks on the Red Cross building and three police stations killed 34 people and injured 200 in Baghdad, prompting the UN to pull out more staff in the week in which America planned to vaunt its success.
The Madrid conference of potential donor countries had raised US$33 billion of grants and (much less desirably) loans, a key bridge in Baghdad was to reopen and the curfew withdrawn as Ramadan began and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, flew in. The result was carnage and an attack, killing a US army colonel, on Wolfowitz's hotel.
Meanwhile in Britain, both supporters of the war and its opponents are strangely paralyzed. The former have two lines of argument. The first, pathetic shot is that anyone who deplores what is going on must want Saddam back. The second is Panglossian drivel about how Iraqi misery is confected by Western pessimists too blinkered to see that the populace is happy, that schools are of a standard to satisfy the pickiest parent and that Russell & Bromley shoe shops will be springing up any day now in Kirkuk high street.
It is true that there is good news, too, principally outside the Sunni triangle. UNICEF, for example, points to a million children inoculated in September, and new school books. But the agency's spokesman in Geneva tells a bleaker story. Aid workers are confused and fearful. All but local staff have now left Baghdad offices besieged behind concrete barricades and moved to Jordan.
As for liberty, the UNICEF man warns that citizens do not yet have the basic freedom of sending their children to school in the knowledge that they will return unharmed. "Minute by minute, our efficiency is decreasing," he says.
Those of us who opposed the war can claim that we were more right than we thought. There were no WMDs, no nuclear program, no legal case and no link with al-Qaeda, until Bush and Blair invited them along. And yet the anti-war movement, whatever its stake on prescience, has proved a depressingly negative force, too. The populist spirit that politicized a generation and illuminated mass marches has curdled into pessimism and posturing. It may be excessive to hope that a peace movement can save a single Iraqi life. But it might show better that it mourned, or even noticed.
This is Britain's war, too. Yet the Prime Minister, its joint impresario, has faced nothing more irksome than a few "Bliar" placards and the sideshow of the Hutton inquiry. March against Bush by all means, but wonder, also, why we absolve our own politicians from intensive scrutiny and protest. In the US, by contrast, every CNN phone-in programme reeks of fury. Almost 60 per cent of Americans now want their troops reduced or out.
Bush's US$87 billion adventure is so unpopular that he may get his exit papers as well. A presidential race is on, the body bags (360 to Britain's 51) are coming home, and Iraq still inflames public debate.
Bush, cornered and in danger, has made a series of catastrophic decisions, culminating in ordaining a privatized future in which Iraq would get industrial oligarchs and a private healthcare system for the destitute. But he has also, more commendably, overruled the Democrats' wish that half the US$19 billion rebuilding costs should be loaned, not given. As for the loathsome neocons, they grow more humble by the day.
Defeat makes hard men malleable. If the Bush administration is to be persuaded of a sensible way forward, then this may be the last, frail chance. The proconsul, Paul Bremer, should be replaced by someone with UN legitimacy, and the Iraqi police and army expanded as fast as possible. There must be a timetable for a handover, but also the recognition that democracy (very probably an Islamic one) cannot be forged without the rule of law.
Elections without security achieve nothing, as Bosnia proved. That is not to argue against fast-tracking US troop withdrawal or to deny that American soldiers inflame the current problems. Even so, to walk away from a disaster of our making would be an unthinkable betrayal.
Yet, at this vital juncture, the leading anti-war movement parades only one idea. The US pull-out "within months" desired by the Stop the War Coalition is also the dream of cost-cutting Americans. The fact that Bush may himself feel secretly tempted to leave Iraq to anarchy or civil war makes it imperative that he and Blair, the architects of this disaster, are held accountable by the coherent and the peaceful.
No doubt Bush would be delighted to learn that some British opponents will be torching his image on bonfire night, perhaps with their children looking on. Such gestures, vapid and vaguely savage, are a gift. They make it easier for our leaders to ignore the demands of the quiet millions who abhorred their war but who now look forwards. We want solutions and progress, not revenge.
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with