In the days when Britain was being forced to give up one colony after another, the phrase "father of the nation" was much in vogue.
Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus, and Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia were among the many who won this informal title -- not just from journalists in search of a label but, more importantly, from their own people. As teachers, clerics or trade unionists who became political leaders, they were seen as the chief architects of the struggle for independence.
Forty years on from the age of decolonization, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat is the last man who can claim that status. In many ways his title is even more deserved. He had to win recognition of the fact that there was such a thing as a Palestinian nation at all. For decades, the Arab states and the British, who initially had the mandate to run Palestine, and the Israelis, who moved into the land, refused to accept there were Palestinian people, let alone a nation.
A different fight
Unlike other independence leaders, Arafat was not working in a situation when the settler community had reached its peak and the metropolitan governments that supported them were starting to lose heart. He had to fight against a constantly expanding settler tide linked to a determined government and a rock-hard military, both of which were backed, or at least not opposed, by a world superpower.
Nor was the definition of the territory fixed. It was under constant threat of shrinkage -- and is to this day.
To hold firm in these conditions, to maintain political unity and keep up his people's morale and resistance under conditions of siege, house demolitions and assassinations, was extraordinary. To move from defensive consolidation and start to build a nation was nigh impossible. That Arafat managed to do it and retain the affection of his people, not just as a symbol of independence but as a respected and approachable human being, is a tribute to his greatness.
Sharon's role
Many Palestinians are convinced that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the implacable opponent with whom he had first duelled in exile in Lebanon, had a hand in Arafat's collapse. They remember Sharon's statement earlier this year that he no longer felt bound by his promise "not to harm" Arafat. In a cunningly vague but vicious article in the Jerusalem Post his confidant, Uri Dan, on Thrusday hinted that Sharon "eliminated" Arafat via one of his chefs. So it is not surprising that rumors are swirling that Arafat was surreptitiously poisoned or infected.
On one point he was helped by Sharon. The Israeli prime minister's blindness over the past three years in refusing to deal with Arafat and getting US President George W. Bush to try to marginalize him backfired at home and around the world. It increased Arafat's stature. In spite of all the obstacles, the pilgrimage by foreign diplomats to Arafat's quasi-prison continued.
The demand that before any negotiations take place Arafat must first "reform" the Palestinian state and "control" the suicide bombers was equally pointless. In the midst of a cycle of violence for which Israel's provocative incursions are the main motor, it is absurd to expect any leader to act freely.
`Road map' remains relevent
With or without Arafat, the imperative is for a ceasefire and a resumption of talks with whoever succeeds him. European governments, as members of the quartet alongside Russia, the US and the UN, must insist that Sharon's unilateral pull-out from Gaza proceed but be embedded in the so-called road map.
An Israeli withdrawal from Gaza cannot be used as a way of "buying" the right to retain any of the illegally occupied territories. Nor can it be done without an internationally accepted document that clearly specifies Gaza's borders, provides the link with the West Bank on which previous draft agreements insisted, and lays down some form of demilitarization that would disqualify Israeli forces from re-invading.
Talks also need to resume on all the West Bank issues, including the right of refugee return and the territory's final status.
Otherwise Israel's attempts to turn the West Bank into a series of overcrowded bantustans without a functioning economy will continue unchecked.
Bush's election victory offers a window in which US policy could, in theory, change. A second-term president is less fettered politically. Bush should end his encouragement of Sharon's unilateralism and return unambiguously to the road map that on paper he still claims to support.
Arafat's demise will be both a tragedy and an opportunity. He is the father of the nation but not yet the father of the Palestinian state. It will be up to others to fulfil that task. But the Palestinians have to be the ones to choose them. Leaders selected or anointed by outsiders will never gain the necessary stature.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS