Chris Patten, the European commissioner for foreign affairs, said the other day that America had to be careful that after winning the war it didn't lose the peace. But who can say that America has won the war? It hasn't "smoked out" Osama bin Laden, the supposed objective. As for losing the peace, yes, the indications are indeed worrying. No one in Washington with their hand over their heart could say that world opinion is now behind America. It may have been momentarily in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, but over the months that support has been whittled away.
The treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has brought it all to a head. Indeed, the very fact that this issue has become so hot, particularly in Europe, is an indication of the deep doubts and reservations in the chancelleries of Western Europe about America's ongoing call to arms. The Europeans do not find it easy to break publicly with America, yet years of impatience with Washington's rigid attitude toward capital punishment, brutal prison regimes and, of late, deep resistance to the idea of pushing forward the frontiers of international law with the International Criminal Court, have meant that Guantanamo has become the straw that broke the camel's back.
Red herring
Yet, on its merits, Guantanamo is something of a red herring. The Americans do have a case for not designating al-Qaeda members as "prisoners of war." They do need to interrogate them in detail and over months, a process not so easy if they are officially prisoners of war and it is not clear that the Geneva Conventions do apply to this terrorist gang with no fixed address.
The prisoners, given the climate of southern Cuba, are rather better off in a "cage" where they can see the sea and the sky than in a "dungeon" without even a window, like too many prisoners in America's own jails. Even Fidel Castro, who understandably thinks America should give up this bit of occupied Cuba, has not joined the chorus of criticism. The only serious mistake Washington has made is failing to quickly set up legal procedures which could decide who is a likely al-Qaeda member and who is a regular combatant with the Taliban forces.
Yet, this is the issue the Europeans have used to vent their displeasure with America. The very fact that the issue itself doesn't stand up to scrutiny underlines that it is merely an excuse to communicate to Washington that world opinion cannot be taken for granted and that if America decides to expand this war to Africa, the Philippines, to Indonesia and even to Iraq it may find itself isolated. Already Saudi Arabia has implied that, in the long run, it doesn't foresee American bases permanently on its soil and this would make it extraordinarily difficult for Washington to effectively go to war again with Iraq. Its Saudi base was crucial in its last effort and its alternative, neighboring Oman, is beset with uncertainties.
Washington may react by doing what it wants to do anyway. Already there are indications of that with its apparent support for Israel in its attempt to besiege the compound in Ramallah that houses the residence and offices of Yasser Arafat, and its landing of troops and special forces in the Philippines to combat Muslim rebels.
Yet the more America branches out the more risks it takes. Arab popular opinion has all but deserted it. Europe is wavering and China and Russia only stay on board because they have their own fish to fry in Chechnya and Xinjiang. And even they would find it difficult to stay the course if Israel, with a wink and a nod from Washington, decides to arrest or even kill Arafat. Certainly the outrage would drown out all other issues to the detriment of what certainly does need to be done -- the continuous hard work by police and intelligence agencies of running to earth the remaining al-Qaeda cells and bringing its members to justice. That is the ball that all eyes need to be kept focussed on.
For some reason, Washington has convinced itself that Arafat is more the sinner than the sinned against. This goes back to former president Bill Clinton's unfortunate remarks on the conclusion of the Camp David negotiations in which he singled out the Palestinians as the intransigent ones. Yet this was not fair to the facts as the later negotiations in Taba, Egypt, after the second Intifada had got going, made clear. The Israelis then moved their negotiating position forward in a way that they had stubbornly refused to at Camp David.
Too late
By then it was all too late. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, was a lame duck. It was clear that Ariel Sharon would win the imminent elections and that there was simply nobody who could sell what was a difficult and demanding deal to Israeli public opinion. Arafat certainly knew that and it was not in his nature to take a great political chance just for a piece of paper. He let the opportunity go, for which he is now roundly but probably unfairly blamed.
Unless the US suddenly captures bin Laden the critics are going to continue to say that America lost the war -- and at the price of taking more innocent lives in Afghanistan than the terrorists did with their airborne attacks on America. As for the peace, there is no sign of peace and what little there is Washington seems determined to undermine. US President George W. Bush who, in his State of the Union address this week said the war "is only beginning," is in grave danger of finding himself very much alone.
Jonathan Power is a freelance columnist based in London.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS