If freedom, democracy and human rights are the values that the US claims to uphold, then it has no good reason to start an illegitimate war against Iraq. If it has no choice but to follow the path of war, then that war must be compatible with the principles of justice (ie, it must be a "just war"). Only after all peaceful efforts have proven ineffective should a military solution be adopted. In other words, war is the last choice. Has the situation developed to the stage where war is unavoidable, or can it still be avoided? This should be the main focus of American thinking.
During the 12 years since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq has been the target of international sanctions. More and more members of its younger generations have lost the chance to receive an education, child mortality is on the increase and the economy has long been in the doldrums. For the weak Iraqi society, the feeling of despair cannot be shaken off.
Even though US President George W. Bush keeps saying that the Middle East will never see peace unless the thorn in his side, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, is eliminated, this has not shaken Saddam's position in Iraq. Instead, it is making a popular hero out of him for resisting US imperialism. However, does the US have the right to overthrow another nation's leader?
If the US really is serious about helping to change the Iraqi system, it should extend a helping hand and concrete economic aid instead of using missiles to deal with the country. The cost of one missile fired during the Gulf War would be enough to provide a school full of students with lunch for five years. The US$1 million cost of one Patriot missile is equal to the annual income of 400 Iraqis (Iraq's annual per capita income is US$2,500).
Improving Iraqi attitudes towards the US by helping the Iraqis, and using this aid to promote democratic values, thus influencing the country from the bottom up, is the only thing that makes any real sense. Otherwise, even if the US succeeds in ousting Saddam, it will still be impossible to guarantee that the US-friendly government it cultivates in his place will not eventually become another dictatorship.
If the US still claims to be the leader of the international community, it shouldn't forget that it is itself part of that community. It should heed the anti-war voices heard all over the world, including from within the US. Should the leader of the international community go it alone if the majority of the community is of the opinion that it should not wage war on Iraq?
If the US believes that it can rely on the superiority of its own strength to throw its weight around, it has lost its power of reflection, which makes it even less qualified to remain the leader of the international community.
The US should respect the reports of the UN weapons inspectors. It should admit that there is insufficient evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, instead of using sophistry to claim that this is simply a result of Iraqi deception. Only by following the UN line of pursuing a peaceful resolution will the US be acting as a responsible great power.
Once the US wages war on Iraq on its own, it will be faced with sanctions from the International Criminal Court. This will then no longer be a problem that the US can solve by rhetoric. The US will also have lost the respect and trust of the members of the international community.
Chien Hsi-chieh is executive director of the Peacetime Foundation of Taiwan.
Translated by Perry Svensson
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The National Immigration Agency on Tuesday said it had notified some naturalized citizens from China that they still had to renounce their People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizenship. They must provide proof that they have canceled their household registration in China within three months of the receipt of the notice. If they do not, the agency said it would cancel their household registration in Taiwan. Chinese are required to give up their PRC citizenship and household registration to become Republic of China (ROC) nationals, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) said. He was referring to Article 9-1 of the Act
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS