Despite the fragile ceasefire in Lebanon, the risks of a wider war in the Middle East remain. Too many political leaders, including US President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the leaders of radical groups in the Middle East, prefer military solutions to peaceful compromise.
When Bush paints the Middle East as a struggle of good versus evil, or terror versus freedom, he abandons politics. When Israel attempts vainly to defeat Hezbollah, it tries to avoid painful but necessary political compromises over disputed territory.
The problems of the Middle East are much more about politics and culture than about terror and freedom. Part of the problem is Israel's continuing occupation of the West Bank as well as a piece of southern Lebanon. Until Israel agrees to return to the 1967 borders with minor modifications, and to end its political control over millions of West Bank Arabs, unrest will continue.
Another part of the problem is the brazen manipulation of the Persian Gulf region by the UK and US to ensure their oil security. There can be little doubt that the current war in Iraq is fundamentally about oil. For nearly 100 years, first the British empire and then the US have manipulated Middle Eastern governments, launched coups, bought puppet regimes and supported wars in order to control the region's oil flows.
This approach continues despite its persistent failure. The key to oil security is peace, not military occupation and puppet regimes. The US embraced the Shah of Iran and the result was a revolution in Iran. The US embraced and later toppled Saddam Hussein, inciting chaos with an unintended boost for Iran. The US stationed troops in Saudi Arabia and thus helped to create al-Qaeda's political agenda. The US pushed for elections in Palestine but then championed the financial strangulation of the newly elected Hamas government.
These factors, together with the obvious failings of many Middle Eastern governments, have fueled the surge of fundamentalism among Muslims, American Christians and some Israeli Jews that has now boiled over into rampant extremism, terror and messianic visions of good versus evil. True, fundamentalists are a minority everywhere, but they are stoking widespread fear, loathing and dreams of salvation. Fundamentalists promote violence and war while weakening moderates forces.
Many warmongers in Washington, including apparently some in the White House, are seeking to expand their endless military campaign to Iran and Syria. Indeed, the daily demonizing of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah has much the same tone as the campaign against former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to the Iraq War.
The war party appears to be trying to whip up American public opinion in support of a wider conflict. Political operatives may also judge that an increased sense of danger and insecurity will tilt votes to the Republicans in the US Congressional elections in November.
We need to reject "us versus them" logic, in which Israel is pure and the Arabs are evil (or vice versa). Every state in the region must embrace compromise and mutual respect as the basis of a lasting settlement. Israel will not be able to avoid territorial withdrawals to the 1967 borders by exercising its military might; the US will not be able to ensure oil security through continued military occupation in the Middle East; and terrorists will not be able to destroy Israel or foist their fundamentalist ideas by force on moderate societies.
This is no pipe dream. In my work throughout the world, as an economist and development practitioner, I find that the vast majority of individuals and political leaders of all religions, races, and creeds are ready to work together to achieve the shared goals of prosperity and well-being for their children. The claim by many Israelis that there are "no partners for peace" is absurd. Israel's neighbors will make peace on the basis of fair borders and fair play.
Similarly, the claim that we are headed toward an inevitable clash of civilizations is sheer madness, propounded by people who think the worst of other groups but don't really know them through personal contact or shared experience. What unites us is vastly greater than what divides us.
We can't depend on our political leaders to do what is needed, because many of them are captives or promoters of extremist views. Our independent media need to seek out voices not only of the warmongers who make so much noise, but also of civil society leaders whose voices we do not regularly hear.
US newspapers need to publish op-ed pieces not only by Americans "interpreting" the Middle East, but also by representative thinkers from the Middle East itself. Scientists in Europe, the US, Asia and the Middle East need to deepen their contacts and work together. The same is true with artists, musicians, sports teams and community leaders.
Crass tribalism now threatens to overwhelm all that unites us in our common care for our children, our planet and our future. This is a challenge far too important to be left to Bush, Blair, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and Ehud Olmert. Peace will be won by the moderate voices around the world that demand an end to senseless violence and to the tragic illusions of those who believe in a "final victory" over their foes.
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate
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