When the Iraq invasion was in full swing, it overwhelmed world news. The usual attention given to East Asia and the rest of the world was missing or at least subdued. Even the important confrontation generated by North Korea was usually buried in the back pages of the newspapers. It was all Iraq. Iraq is only a step in the broad strategy that the George W. Bush administration has set for itself, however.
There are two other events that deserve equal attention: the perhaps permanent weakening of the UN, and the broad implications of the spread of SARS from China. It is still too early to judge the impact of all three of these events on the shape of the 21st century. But clearly, we are entering an entirely new world.
America was, and remains, the principal target of terrorist attacks. Sept. 11, 2001 gruesomely awakened the country to the fact that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) can be available and used by any group or country directly against the US.
The result, a year later, was the publication by the White House of the National Security Strategy. Much of the attention this got in Taiwan's media was due to favorable comments about Taiwan and its democracy included in it. Those that follow international affairs throughout the world, including Taiwan, however, focused on the very fundamental change in US policy -- the need, and the right, to launch preemptive strikes against those who want to attack the US with WMD.
There are eight elements in the strategy paper: human rights, global terrorism, regional con-flicts, WMD, economic growth, democracy, coalitions and reform of national security institutions. The strategy paper was published last September, and one can already put events since then into many of these eight strategy elements. Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea have gained much public attention and are included in coalitions, regional conflict, WMD and terrorism. Pushing free trade agreements is another.
While there is wide support for active and cooperative counter-terrorism policies, few countries consider themselves major targets of terrorism. In addition, the question that naturally follows is who decides when, and against whom, such preemptive attacks should be made. The UN, obviously, was the most popular choice of the media and the general public.
The problem with depending on the UN was that it took considerable time just to get an agree-ment that Iraq had been operating for years in open violation of UN-sanctioned rules. There was some hope when Resolution 1441 was passed, but when it became time to enforce the rules by sanctioning an invasion by UN members, agreement could not be reached.
There will be books written about the US-led forces that invaded Iraq, and with time include what they accomplished. There will also be books written about the demise, or at least the fundamental weakening of the UN, as a result of its inability to resolve the differences between permanent members of the Security Council on this issue. It has become clear that the UN is not structured to deal with such a responsibility, and there has always been little support of making it so.
What we see now is only the beginning of America's new security strategy that will go far beyond the invasion of Iraq. Already the Bush administration has turned again to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And more recently there was a suggestion by President George W. Bush to pursue free trade agreements with countries in the Middle East.
Likewise, the question of the UN's role is yet to be debated. With the importance of all the special agencies that fall under the UN, it is more than likely the debate will center on adjusting or clarifying UN headquarters role and reforming its institutions than on abolishing it.
In the midst of this worldwide drama, SARS surfaced to generate yet another change in the way international affairs will be pursued in this new century. Only about 50 years ago, 30 million people in China were allowed to starve to death by its government rather than change a failed policy. There was no international uproar -- few outsiders even knew it was happening until years later.
When SARS was first noticed in China last year, the knee-jerk inclination that existed 50 years ago -- to suppress the information -- was still being practiced. As the government there now knows, it is no longer possible to do this.
This change is not based on a more liberal view of governance. The great strides in technology, the access to information and the necessity for transparency in managing a market economy, all make large-scale subterfuge far more difficult than in the past.
SARS at this point has had a major impact primarily on people in East Asia. It also has a noticeable impact on the politics of both Taiwan and China. The longer it remains a crisis, however, the more impact it will have on the economies beyond East Asia.
The extent to which the SARS crisis has influenced politics in China is less clear, though there is much speculation on the impact it will have on the third and fourth generation leadership there. In Taiwan, for a short time at least, it brought some unity in getting legislation passed and a degree of civility among the various political leaders.
The changed security strategy of the US, and the now questionable role of the UN, have both long-term and worldwide implications. SARS' implication on China's international standing following its poor handling of the initial stages of the crisis may take some time to overcome, while Taiwan's efforts to gain entry into the WHO have been strengthened. Whether they has been strengthened enough, however, is still an open question.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS