The UN weapons inspection team has released its second report, stating that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. The report has failed to provide grounds for the US, the UK and Australia to attack Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime. The number of countries supporting the US has also decreased. Moreover, it has triggered large-scale anti-war movements across the world. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's administration was also forced to support extending the inspection work.
Perhaps US President George W. Bush's administration should have first done more introspection before committing itself to brashness. Why has it faced so many obstacles domestically and internationally? The problem lies in the Bush administration's diplomatic direction, rather than Saddam's excellent diplomatic skills. On the one hand, the Bush administration has pursued"unilateralism" ever since it came to power. It has taken the US interest as a priority while putting other countries' opinions aside.
On the other hand, the US relies on using forcefulness to solve the Iraq problem. Nevertheless, the price of war is too high. All other countries believe that they should stop Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction through the UN, and that they should not easily use force against Iraq if it's not absolutely necessary.
The Bush administration's insistence on using force against Iraq is self-injurious. First, US relations with many of its major allies have become tense today. France and Germany in Europe, as well as Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, have all been the US' important long-term allies. But these countries now have divergent views on the matter. Both the future operation of NATO and handling of Middle East affairs will be hampered if the US does not deal with the issue carefully.
Next, the global anti-terrorism alliance that the US put together after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks may split. Among the 15 UN Security Council members, France, Russia and China already oppose the US. Strong anti-US voices also surge from Europe to the Middle East and Southeast Asia. This will be a problem for the US war against terror in years to come.
The Bush administration is in a dilemma at the moment. If it insists on staging a war, it will be criticized for sending the army out without a righteous cause. This will worsen US relations with its allies and cause even larger-scale anti-war movements worldwide. But if it withdraws its army now, the US' prestige and credibility will be damaged.
Perhaps the Bush administration can do some damage control. The UN inspection work in Iraq has become more effective since the US sent its troops to the Persian Gulf region and threatened to overturn Saddam's regime. The Iraqi government has also made concessions and is now willing to cooperate with the UN inspection team, vowing to abide by the UN's ban on weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the US' tough stance has successfully helped reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and it has also maintained the UN's authority and dignity.
The Bush administration should renegotiate with the UN Security Council members so as to deploy more long-term weapons inspectors in Iraq. It should also deploy a portion of its troops in Iraq's neighboring countries and closely monitor Saddam's regime. Under such circumstances, not only will the Bush administration's withdrawal of troops not damage its prestige and credibility, but it will unite the US and its allies and avoid killing in the Persian Gulf region.
Wang Kao-cheng is an associate professor in the Department of International Affairs and Strategic Studies at Tamkang University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS