US President George W. Bush made a speech at 9am on Tuesday, during which he gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to leave Baghdad within 48 hours. Upon Hussein's failure to comply and having exhausted all diplomatic measures, the US finally launched its war against Iraq on Thursday.
It is hard to predict how long this invasion will last. But this much is known: With its superior military strength and state-of-the-art weapons, the coalition is bound to win the war. No less predictable than the likely length of the invasion are the implications of the certain emergence of a "new world order" and new regional orders. Potential future developments include: The US gaining control of the Middle East, making the Muslim world succumb to the will of the US-led Western democracies; the redistribution of oil resources; the substantial elimination of Muslim terrorism; maximum effort on the part of the US to mediate in the Israel-Palestinian question.
But the biggest difference between the current war and the Gulf War of more than a decade ago was the failure of the US to secure he backing of the UN this time. A huge chasm opened between the US-led coalition and other major powers, including France, Russia, Germany and China. Plus, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld satirized France and Germany as the "old Europe," which, he said, had created some of the most serious divisions between the US and European allies since the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War. It is conceivable that the NATO countries may now find it very difficult to continue their past cooperation. The rise of the EU, both militarily and economically, will likely make Europe more inclined to assert its independence from US policy.
Of course, the impact on the US-Sino relationship, the diplomatic wrangling in Northeast Asia, and a host of subsequent effects on Taiwan are of even greater concern for the nation. Before the US struck Iraq last week, the chilling within the UN Security Council could be characterized as a match between the US and Britain, on one side, and Germany and France, on the other, while China observed the turn of events in an unpredictable manner. China may indeed have insisted that the Iraqi question be handled by the Security Council, but it also never mentioned whether it intended to exercise its veto power. Countries such as France and Russia probably wondered whether there was some kind of secret deal between the US and China.
The truth of the matter is that ever since former president Jiang Zemin (
The US, therefore, is still one of the countries to which China must snuggle up. Besides, from the perspective of the distribution of world power, China is content to see the US wage war on Iraq. On one hand, this consumes US strength, and on the other hand it keeps the US preoccupied. It will, moreover, give China the opportunity to bargain with the US for strategic or economic interests, some of which may include US concessions on the Taiwan issue.
The US of course knows only too well what kind of tricks China has up its sleeve. But, while at war, it has to put up with China. It can always deal with China after defeating Baghdad. So, at this time, the US is unlikely to make any concessions that might compromise Taiwan.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell's talk in open support of Taiwan was the equivalent of an official warning to China to refrain from playing any tricks at a time when US hands are tied. At the same time, the US also dispatched an aircraft carrier to the waters around the Korean Peninsula, declaring its preparedness to fight on both fronts if necessary. But there is cause for concern as to whether, once the US-Iraq war ends, the above-described developments in the US and Europe might lead to changes in East Asia.
If the US and western Europe go their separate ways, will Beijing seize the opportunity to ally with Europe to oppose the US and provoke further splits between the US and Europe, Japan and even South Korea? If so, it may be able to disrupt the world order and dominate East Asia, winning bargaining chips to negotiate with the US on the Taiwan issue.
At a time of so much uncertainty, when all the great powers have their own secret agendas, and a new modus operandi is emerging with a new world order, what should Taiwan do? It must have the courage and steadfastness to face any potential crisis. The leadership of the country must stay calm and firm, so as to avoid mistakes. Besides ensuring adequate oil reserves and aviation and shipping safety precautions, the government must also make accurate and honest policy declarations, such as explaining why this country must firmly stand by the US and aid the US in fighting against terrorism. It must make clear that only the US has the power and the will to effectively safeguard the future of the Taiwan Strait.
Taiwan had no other choice than to support the US in pursuing total victory in the war against terror. The government must rebut the anti-war talk of certain individuals and persuade them of the predicament facing Taiwan and of international realities. People must understand that while world peace may be the common ideal of all our countrymen, it can only exist in an environment capable of upholding the international order. Otherwise, it won't last and all talk of it is just empty talk.
Besides, after the American war on terror in Afghanistan ended, organizations from Taiwan's private sector such as the Tzu Chi Buddhist Relief Foundation, World Vision Taiwan, Eden Social Welfare Foundation, as well as certain government agencies all went to Afghanistan to provide relief for homeless war refugees, garnering much recognition from the international community.
Irrespective of when the war ends, the government should also declare to the world that while Taiwan may oppose terrorism, it is also peace-loving and kind-hearted. Once the war ends, people of all political persuasions will provide both monetary and other forms of aid, and organize medics to lend assistance in Iraq, to help the wounded and sick of a post-war Iraq. China's ambitions toward Taiwan must also be disclosed to the world.
Let China's intentions of occupying Taiwan be known to the world. Let it be known that Taiwan will always be on the side of the US in the rivalry between the US and China. If Taiwan's interests are compromised, US strength will also be compromised.
This is a critical moment. At a time when international relations are at a historic turning point, the destiny of Taiwan will test the wisdom of the nation's leaders.
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