At dinner with an American friend of mine and a Japanese acquaintance of his, an interesting conversation followed from the confusion expressed by the Japanese gentleman. Why, he wondered, should the English be so friendly with the Americans that they are fighting alongside them in the conflict in Afghanistan?
As an Englishman, I was interested that I had never considered whether the "special relationship" between Britain and America, as British politicians like to call it, was viewed as such by any other nation. It seemed, at least, that one Japanese was surprised by the chumminess being displayed in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
I am no hawk, and perhaps something of a cynic, which was why I was also given pause by the response I gave. There is a particularly crass kind of naivete in likening anyone we don't like to Hitler or Stalin, or any other favorite villain. But I think Hitler is a large part of the reason the British are there now.
Hitler and bin Laden have one crucial thing in common: they are not criminals in the darkness, admitting their evil by their attempts to conceal their action. They wrote and spoke clearly, lucidly, and given their own view of the world, coherently and intelligently about what they wanted to do. Hitler wrote his famous Mein Kampf (My Struggle), two words that have no doubt been used in Arabic by bin Laden time and time again. If indeed bin Laden is the perpetrator of the incidents of Sept. 11 then, like Hitler, he has done (and is doing) no more or less than he has told the world he wants to do.
The British, in particular, can see the repetition of history, because of what they did back in the 1930s in Europe, as they made moves to understand and contain Hitler's intentions. The Houses of Parliament discussed two policies in particular -- appeasement and conflict.
Appeasement was the baby of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who is now remembered for four words above all else. After meeting Hitler, he came back off the plane in Britain waving a piece of paper with his and Hitler's signatures and said that this paper meant "peace in our time." He was wrong. It didn't.
As the failure became more and more evident, culminating in the invasion of Poland, Chamberlain's position became untenable and Churchill and his supporters, who had been (and in some quarters still are) labeled war-mongers, ascended to fight the menace. Thank God they did.
Churchill is famous for saying: "To jaw jaw is better than to war war." But even so, he knew when the point had come to draw a line in the sand of the beaches of Europe and say, "Thus far, and no further."
The British tried appeasement, and tried conflict, with forces empowered by an intelligent man with a stated intent to destroy things that were valued by decent British people. Appeasement failed. Conflict succeeded, even if at a terrible price.
This is perhaps why, even as a cynic, I am not quick to say that British Prime Minister Blair's commitment to the Americans is politicking. Perhaps it is just the only thing he can do in good conscience after reading his history books.
I should say that I am skeptical as to the effectiveness of the campaign in Afghanistan. I should also say that if it is indeed ineffective, it is abhorrent. However, recently (continuing with all things British) I heard what I think were wise words from a learned English politician. He pointed out that piracy, which was in its time at least as ubiquitous as terrorism today, was and remains, defeated. And the thought that sponsored the defeat was not "let us understand the causes of piracy;" nor was it "how can we communicate with these people and try to reach a common understanding." Rather it was: "No cause justifies piracy. Therefore we will fight it by whatever means wherever we encounter it." The commitment was total and the implementation by nations was unified in intent. I believe greatly in understanding and communication, but I willingly admit the effectiveness of the conflicts against Hitler and against piracy.
The British may not like what they are doing in Afghanistan. Psychologically, one could argue, they are doing proportionally more than the Americans, since the attack was not on British soil. But many of us know that to do nothing and experience the not-unlikely consequences of inaction would be simply immoral. That there is such a sense in British politics, if I am right, is a thing to celebrate and, perhaps, something from which other nations of the world could learn.
Robin Koerner is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.
Since the end of the Cold War, the US-China espionage battle has arguably become the largest on Earth. Spying on China is vital for the US, as China’s growing military and technological capabilities pose direct challenges to its interests, especially in defending Taiwan and maintaining security in the Indo-Pacific. Intelligence gathering helps the US counter Chinese aggression, stay ahead of threats and safeguard not only its own security, but also the stability of global trade routes. Unchecked Chinese expansion could destabilize the region and have far-reaching global consequences. In recent years, spying on China has become increasingly difficult for the US
Lately, China has been inviting Taiwanese influencers to travel to China’s Xinjiang region to make films, weaving a “beautiful Xinjiang” narrative as an antidote to the international community’s criticisms by creating a Potemkin village where nothing is awry. Such manipulations appear harmless — even compelling enough for people to go there — but peeling back the shiny veneer reveals something more insidious, something that is hard to ignore. These films are not only meant to promote tourism, but also harbor a deeper level of political intentions. Xinjiang — a region of China continuously listed in global human rights reports —
The annual summit of East Asia and other events around the ASEAN summit in October and November every year have become the most important gathering of leaders in the Indo-Pacific region. This year, as Laos is the chair of ASEAN, it was privileged to host all of the ministerial and summit meetings associated with ASEAN. Besides the main summit, this included the high-profile East Asia Summit, ASEAN summits with its dialogue partners and the ASEAN Plus Three Summit with China, Japan and South Korea. The events and what happens around them have changed over the past 15 years from a US-supported, ASEAN-led
To the dismay of the Chinese propaganda machine, President William Lai (賴清德) has been mounting an information offensive through his speeches. No longer are Taiwanese content with passively reacting to China’s encroachment in the international window of discourse, but Taiwan is now setting the tone and pace of conversation. Last month, Lai’s statement that “If China wants Taiwan it should also take back land from Russia” made international headlines, pointing out the duplicity of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) revanchism. History shows that the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) stance on regional territorial disputes has not been consistent. The early CCP
RSS