Six years have passed since the terrorist attacks on the US that shook the world. They didn't change the world, mind you, as mass murder of civilians wasn't born on that day. But six long years and two major wars later, we have had time to ponder what it is that leads individuals to commit mass murder to achieve their political objectives.
Judging from the comments emanating from the "free world," however, it would seem that these six years of introspection have been in vain, for aside from the continued martial discourse we have been fed since Sept. 11, 2001, much of everything else the leaders in the West have said has been little more than uninspired hot air.
True, the "D word" continues to be bandied about, like some circus oddity plucked out of a hat whenever doing so is convenient. But so overused, exploited and overstretched has the concept become that the word has lost much of its meaning.
One occurrence illustrates this perfectly -- an instance of so much hot air that it must have contributed to global warming. (Coincidentally, it comes the same week scientists announced that the Arctic ice is melting at an alarming rate.)
During a speech at the APEC summit in Sydney on Thursday, US President George W. Bush lauded the democratic achievements in the Asia-Pacific region and proposed the creation of an "Asia-Pacific Democracy Partnership," the vagueness of whose objectives could only be surpassed by the triteness of the statement itself.
The last thing the region needs is another institution. What democracy needs isn't a new layer to the onion, but rather leaders who are ready to use the term without the underhanded purposes of master cynics. Tellingly, as he expounded the virtues of this new body, Bush could not even say whether Taiwan -- part of the "bedrock of America's engagement in the region" -- would be part of it.
We wouldn't bet a cup of tea on it. Rather, Beijing would do what Beijing does and through blackmail, threats and manipulation would force the spineless "free world" to exclude -- quite undemocratically -- one of the most vibrant democracies in the region. And no one would object.
It is easy to accuse Bush of democratic turpitude, but other beacons of democracy need not pop open the self-congratulatory champagne yet, for critics alike -- Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and the others -- have all been absentee landlords when it comes to standing up for their principles. Their leaders have all used the D word in a variety of guises, but their inaction has travestied it beyond recognition. So hold the Bush bashing, for the truth is there is no leader of the "free world," and creating a new institution certainly won't fix the problem.
The global intelligence community reacted to Sept. 11 by reorganizing itself and creating new agencies. But doing so didn't "fix" intelligence gaps, and many observers today would argue that six years on, the world is none the safer. Creating new bodies only serves one purpose: It gives the impression that we're doing something. As long as agencies refuse to look at a problem with honesty and fail to talk to each other, all those new buildings in the alphabet soup of counterterrorism will serve no purpose other than to add to the complexity of an already labyrinthine flow chart.
The same applies to democracy. What the Asia-Pacific region needs is inclusiveness where there has been discrimination; honesty in lieu of cynicism. It needs world leaders who understand that myopic support for undemocratic regimes, from the Taliban before Sept. 11 to Beijing today, can only give rise to problems in the not-so-distant future.
Bring Taiwan and other repressed democratic voices into existing forums, and then we'll take your discourse on democracy more seriously, Mr. Bush.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty
I live in Taiwan because, like many foreigners, I fell in love with and chose to align my life with a Taiwanese. In an era where personal freedoms are mandatorily ceded to government decree, I am thankful to the Taiwanese government for the spousal visa, as well as the lack of demeaning bureaucratic hoops and hurdles needed to get a work permit, residency permit and healthcare. However, if I then choose to attempt citizenship, this enlightened attitude spasms to seizure, culminating in what appears to be blatant xenophobia. In contrast to Western countries, the path to citizenship mandates a protracted period