Despite the White House's recent talk about an unprecedented opportunity for their new Middle East peace initiative, the Israeli-Palestinian carnage continues. Big surprise, right? Actually, no.
One would have thought that the grim history of so many previously failed attempts at peace would have suggested to some the need for a different approach, a new attitude toward the peace process based on local realties and not unrealistic contingencies.
But from its earliest pronouncement, the "road map" for peace has simply been more of the same. I'm specifically talking about the idea that the start of any peace process be contingent upon the cessation of all violence. Here's a news flash: That's never going happen.
Consequently, it's time to implement the "Peace-Process-Despite-Violence Solution." To do so Israeli and Palestinian leaders must stop asking permission for peace and immediately impose its requisite conditions with constraint and resolve.
When US Secretary of State Colin Powell, as so many have before him, called for the immediate cessation of all violence, he elevated the status of those who promote continued instability in the region to that of determinant agents of undue influence, thus rendering peace hostage to the actions of acknowledged militant fanatics.
Instead, the peace initiative announcement should have been followed by an unequivocal statement that it will proceed, despite the expected violence perpetrated by a radical minority and not contingent on its cessation, immediate or otherwise.
If recent opinion polls are accurate and the majority of Israelis and Palestinians now acknowledge the futility of their respective past actions to achieve their stated goals, namely security for Israel and statehood for the Palestinians, then adopting such a posture would serve to effectively marginalize fanaticism, thus opening space for continued good faith measures that keeps the peace process moving forward and provides tangible benefits for the majority of Israelis and Palestinians.
Real progress was achieved in Aqaba, Jordan, when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accepted the road map and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas called for an end to the latest intifada. But without concrete actions taken by each, their words are simply more empty rhetoric. Though both leaders appeared to accept each other's expressions as genuine and sincere, fundamental to initiating a constructive peace process, they must acknowledge, commit, and resolve themselves not to support actions that undermine the other's legitimacy and authority.
Current Israeli-Palestinian power disparities necessitate a rational and mature appreciation for their respective strengths and capabilities, as well as their weaknesses and limitations. While the state of Israel may have every right to respond with immediate retaliation against those responsible for attacks on Israeli citizens, that doesn't mean that immediate retaliation is always the right response.
But when circumstances do in fact dictate immediate action, Israel must act just as swiftly to implement real concessions, which will ultimately shift the onerous for peace to the other side. If the former negates the latter, retaliation alone only serves to further enhance the continued utility of groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Whether we like it or not, greater military strength and political authority incur greater responsibility.
But to what costs? Does any rational and informed individual really believe Israel could not reassert itself militarily in a matter of hours should it not see real improvement over a given period of time? Of course not. Such a reality warrants implementing the Peace-Process-Despite-Violence Solution.
And to some degree, this approach has already achieved positive results. In their bid to advance the peace process, Israel and the US have made a concerted effort to marginalize Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, and to what consequence? In a vainglorious attempt at reasserting his relevancy, Arafat uncharacteristically identified the latest bus attack in Jerusalem as a terrorist act and called for an immediate end to the violence. Though inherently self-serving, Arafat's announcement does offer a significant validation for the efficacy of marginalization.
An historic opportunity for peace in the Middle East may in fact exist, but not if it is subject to the dictates of militant fanatics. The tenuous dynamics of the much tried and failed approach of conditioning the peace process on the cessation of violence all but guarantees the violence will continue and Israel will feel compelled to retaliate. With so much hatred and distrust on both sides, it is irrational to expect otherwise.
By contrast, while the Peace-Process-Despite-Violence Solution by no means diminishes the insult and suffering caused by the grotesque loss of life experienced by both sides, it will render the senseless meaningful in the ultimate achievement of peace for all.
Haskell Carter was a Fulbright scholar in Taiwan and currently serves as executive director of Minding the Millennium, Inc, a nonprofit globalization education program based in New York.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS