Imagine if, as a result of the Mumbai bombings, the Indian government assumed Pakistan was to blame and, without consulting any of its allies, laid waste to the international airport in Islamabad -- or worse. Or imagine Japan deciding that one more North Korean missile test over its waters or land was too many, before attacking North Korean missile bases.
Would a reasonable person expect Washington to respond to such actions with the line, "We respect the right of [insert name of country] to defend itself"? No: Americans would be expected to deplore acts of revenge and retaliation that are out of all proportion to the provocation because of the long-term instability that this feeds, if not triggering outright war.
But this is not the case with Israel and Lebanon.
Israel's bombing of the international airport in Beirut and residential areas nearby, killing at least 60 innocent people, would in any other part of the world be considered an act of war.
Israel seems to think it bombed the Hezbollah International Airport for the capture of its soldiers. In doing so, the Israelis have thumbed their noses at the safety of not only innocent Lebanese, but also the substantial community of foreigners in Beirut, as well as the safety of airlines and their passengers. Tel Aviv has also vividly nationalized what should have been a response against a specific group.
Indeed, the outrageousness of the attack is compounded by the typically muted reaction of the US and other world powers. Though US President George W. Bush has said that the Israeli attack might weaken the Lebanese government and that he would press for the offensive to stop, the primary message from Washington is simply this: "Israel has the right to defend itself," and that, ipso facto, bombing an international airport constitutes self-defense.
Witness this exchange between a member of the Washington press corps and US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack on Thursday:
Question: "You've talked a lot about the need for Syria, Iran and other countries to recognize Lebanese sovereignty under 1559 and other UN resolutions. If you're not holding the Lebanese government responsible for these actions [Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers], do you think that the Israeli actions are an affront to Lebanese sovereignty?"
McCormack: "Look, we have made very clear that we, as well as others in the region, want to see this situation resolved. We would hope that it does not escalate. All of that said, we all understand Israel's right to defend itself."
A pathetic non-response to a crucial question.
Israel has been subjected to horrific and despicable attacks by people who have lost all sense of humanity such that they would dismember the bodies of civilians of all faiths. But Israel has also perpetrated unjust treatment against Palestinians for which it is rarely held to account. Perhaps it is only ever a matter of time before this kind of situation so degrades the morality of nations -- even a region -- that the unthinkable becomes the next best option.
It is critical that a powerful mediator be firm but fair to both sides. The US, however, continues to play down Israeli excesses while effectively rebuking all Palestinians -- and now all Lebanese -- for the actions of extremist minorities.
If the US continues to rationalize acts of excessive aggression, perhaps Taiwan's military may take some comfort from the possibility that strikes against major Chinese infrastructure such as the Three Gorges Dam and residential areas can be put on the table. Actually, there is no comfort to be had whatsoever, because Taiwan has much more to lose if such atrocities become feasible.
As long as the US plays down Israel's maverick behavior, the danger of Tehran and Beijing's militant governments aping Tel Aviv grows ever larger.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS