This past weekend, just as the world was preparing to ring in the New Year, former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was executed. Three years after being captured by US forces, Saddam was hanged early on Saturday morning, the event broadcast worldwide with almost as much fervor and anticipation as the dawn of the New Year.
Whether or not Saddam received a fair trial and questions regarding the speed and timeliness of his execution will forever accompany the legacy of the infamous ruler.
In one of the many stories relating to the execution, a quotation from the Reverend Jesse Jackson has stuck with me. After preaching at a church in New York, the civil rights leader and former presidential candidate suggested that "killing him reduces our moral authority in the world."
I find myself questioning the Reverend's claim: When did we ever have moral authority?
Forget, for a moment, the fact that from the very beginning, the decision to attack Iraq was considered illegal by most of the international community. Forget the fact that the reason for going to war in the first place -- to rid Saddam of weapons of mass destruction -- has proven fallacious. Forget that despite all the bombs dropped and destruction caused by US-led forces, it is US companies who are now being awarded billion dollar contracts to rebuild the devastated country.
Forget the loss of life; the thousands of US and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Ignore, for an instant, all those obvious flaws with our presence in Iraq, and I still find it hard to comprehend how US leaders can talk about having "moral authority in the world."
Where does this "authority" come from and who bestowed it upon us? Are we to enforce our "authority" only when other nations ask for our assistance, or, as in the case of Iraq, when we deem necessary? And if our commitment to a moral standard is so great, why didn't we show some authority in Rwanda in 1994? Or in Sudan nowadays?
A country's size, wealth and influence in the world does not give it "moral authority" over anyone else. Nor should its faith mislead its people into thinking that they are morally superior to any other. Rather, it is a nation's policies, both domestic and international, that determine a country's decency.
I look forward to the day when US leaders understand that basic principle. For now, talk as they do about US "moral authority in the world," US policymakers have shown little regard for the fundamentally just principles upon which their country was founded.
Konraad Kordula
Taipei
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers