A visit to the US is a salutary reminder that Europe and America are divided not only by an ocean but by an equally deep difference in their media agendas. One of the major stories on US television last week was the news that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son had been in the pay of a Swiss company that participated in the UN oil-for-food program. When I was interviewed by CNN, the presenter demanded to know if I agreed with senior figures in the US Congress that Kofi must resign, a question that would have appeared off the wall to a European broadcaster. \nPart of the problem with their negative coverage of the UN is that the US media tend to talk about the UN as if it were a different continent that readers could find somewhere on their home atlas. They offer no perception that one of the biggest problems of the UN is the ambivalence toward it of its richest, most powerful member state. \nFortunately, the US, and the rest of us, has just been presented with a comprehensive blueprint to render the UN fit for the challenges of the 21st century in the report of the high-level panel published this week. The commission was appointed in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, in an atmosphere of deep depression at the damage to the UN. \nAt the time there was a sharp division between the contention of the Anglo-Saxons that the UN had been weakened by its refusal to act, and the view of nearly everyone else that it had been weakened by its failure to prevent the US and Britain from acting alone. With the advantage of hindsight, it is clear that the damage to the UN would have been much greater if it had been persuaded by US Secretary of State Colin Powell's discredited presentation of the Iraqi threat, and sanctioned an invasion to disarm those elusive weapons of mass disappearance. \nIn the event, the report's 101 recommendations provide a balanced package that should steer the UN through any future Iraq crisis. \nThe Bush doctrine of the pre-emptive strike gets short shrift. It warns: "Allowing one to so act is to allow all." \nThe rejection of unilateral action gains authority from the presence on the panel of Brent Scowcroft, who was a key figure in the administration of former US president George Bush. \nOn the other hand, the report gives official endorsement to the doctrine of intervention on humanitarian grounds that British Prime Minister Tony Blair set out in his Chicago speech five years ago. This marks a radical and welcome development in the approach of the UN. \nWhen the nations of the world met amid the rubble left by World War II, they were preoccupied with preventing it from happening again, and wrote a charter for the UN that stressed the sovereign rights of states to deter wars of aggression. Yet the same nations adopted a universal declaration of human rights. The dilemma with which the UN has wrestled for the past generation is the tension between the right of states to be protected from outside intervention and the right of individuals to be protected when their state oppresses them. \nThe high-level panel has ruled unequivocally that the rights of individuals take precedence over the rights of states. The international community not only has the right to override state sovereignty in cases of major breaches of humanitarian law, such as genocide in Rwanda or ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, but it has the responsibility to protect the human rights of the victims. \nIt would be good to think that the debacle over Iraq, which prompted this report, could yet end with the UN emerging stronger and reshaped to face the challenges of the present day rather than of the past century. Six million people have been killed in conflicts in the past decade. None of these was a war of aggression between states of the kind that preoccupied the founding members of the UN, but all were internal conflicts of the kind for which the high-level panel urges the international community to accept a responsibility to protect. \nWhether the vision of the high-level panel is now converted into reality depends crucially on whether the government of the UN's most influential member can overcome its hostility to multilateral institutions and its reluctance to be bound by international agreements. That will not be the first instinct of many of those now being handpicked by US President George W. Bush for his second administration. \nHe has just appointed Alberto Gonzalez as attorney general, who has dismissed the Geneva convention as "quaint." That is not an opinion that sits easily alongside the high-level panel's call for the international rule of law. \nIf the Blair government in London does indeed retain any influence over the White House, it should now exercise that leverage to support this new vision for the UN and to prevent Britain ever again being confronted with a demand by Washington to back another unilateral adventure without international agreement. \nRobin Cook is a former foreign secretary of the UK.
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose