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
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
The political order of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) first took shape in 1988. Then-vice president Lee succeeded former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) after he passed, and served out the remainder of his term in office. In 1990, Lee was elected president by the National Assembly, and in 1996, he won Taiwan’s first direct presidential election. Those two, six and four-year terms were an era-defining 12-year presidential tenure. Throughout those years, Lee served as helmsman for Taiwan’s transition from martial law and authoritarianism to democracy. This period came to be known as the “quiet revolution,” leaving a legacy containing light
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
RSS