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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said on Monday that it would be announcing its mayoral nominees for New Taipei City, Yilan County and Chiayi City on March 11, after which it would begin talks with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to field joint opposition candidates. The KMT would likely support Deputy Taipei Mayor Lee Shu-chuan (李四川) as its candidate for New Taipei City. The TPP is fielding its chairman, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), for New Taipei City mayor, after Huang had officially announced his candidacy in December last year. Speaking in a radio program, Huang was asked whether he would join Lee’s
RSS