There are a number of tragic coincidences relating to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the 27-year-old Brazilian killed by police officers in London after been mistaken for a suicide bomber. According to the press, Menezes, had been followed by the police for some time because he lived near a gathering place for suspected terrorists. On the morning of July 22, Menezes was wearing an unusually thick coat for a summer's day, arousing further suspicion.
According to the Guardian, the UK has recently dispatched a number of British police officers to Israel to consult with Israeli police about how to maintain national security and handle suicide bombing attacks. The Israeli police and military may well be skilled in tackling bombers, but the extreme approach they have adopted often causes numerous casualties among innocent Palestinians. Such stringent measures have only resulted in more hatred and violence.
Many commentators believe that the rise of Islamist extremists is related to the US' bias toward Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In view of this, the UK's decision to learn how to combat terrorism from Israel may cause more problems than it solves.
The incident reveals the tremendous pressure that British intelligence agencies feel they are under, for it is difficult to prevent suicide bombers from targeting public transportation. It's especially difficult locate perpetrators who are born and educated in the UK.
Why is London a terrorist target? The UK's participation in the war in Iraq has been the most cited factor. Although the British government strongly denied any connection between these two matters, it has failed to convince the majority of the British public. A recent public opinion survey has indicated that most believe that the bombings in London are related to the war in Iraq. The London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs came to a similar conclusion.
However, there are also internal factors inherent in British society to take into account. When the identities of the suicide bombers were revealed, I immediately thought of a movie by British-Pakistani director Udayan Prasad called My Son the Fanatic. The father in the story does all he can to emigrate from Pakistan to Britain, and works as a cabdriver to built himself a new life. He loathed the poverty and backwardness of his motherland, favoring British culture and its way of life (which extended to a liking for afternoon tea and a fair-skinned British prostitute). He was shocked to discover that his son had joined a fundamentalist Muslim sect, rejecting his father's values and love for mainstream British culture.
The family backgrounds of the four young men suspected of involvement in the July 7 London bombings are reminiscent of this movie. Muslim social groups from South Asia have found themselves on the lowest rung of the social and economic ladder in Britain, and have been at the wrong end of prejudice and malice that only got worse following Sept. 11.
The second generation, born and bred in Britain, lack their parents' perception of living a better life, and find it difficult to accept the unfair treatment they receive. There are a great deal of people feeling anger and resentment at the fact that they are socially marginalized, and they are particularly sensitive when it comes to ethnic prejudice.
In a number of cases this has lead to the emergence of a kind of "long distance nationalism," where individuals are bent on a return to imagined traditional values. The only difference in this case with these four individuals is that they are driven not by ethnic nationalism, but religious extremism.
Pakistan, the "home" of some of them, has been through years of problems, seen serious religious conflict and is home to large numbers of extremist groups and Islamic schools that encourage the use of violence. Under these circumstances, it is possible that the Iraq war merely helped ignite the fuse.
The above analysis is not intended to excuse terrorism. Nevertheless, there is equally no excuse for the use of violence against innocent citizens. This is both politically and morally unacceptable, and should not be allowed to continue.
If one is to fight terrorism, one has to truly understand the root causes behind it, and eradicate it from the source. This process takes a long time, and the real question is: In the meantime, are societies like the UK willing to pay the price of possible continued attacks?
Must the rights of the citizen, freedom and human rights be sacrificed in the process? The US, as part of its "war on terror," is arresting suspects without charge and detaining them indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. This policy, and the anti-terrorism legislation being discussed in Britain at the moment, are cause for concern. Is British democracy robust enough to pass this test?
Shang-jen Li is an assistant professor in the department of social medicine at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG AND PAUL COOPER
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS