World politics-LESSON NO.2 For HAMJATTA AND THE FORTY SHIELDS.
> PEACE YES --- MISSILES NO > > Charles Mercieca, Ph.D. > President >
International Association of Educators for World Peace > NGO, United
Nations (ECOSOC) UNDPI, UNICEF, UNCED & UNESCO > Professor Emeritus >
Alabama A&M University > > An international peace conference was
scheduled in Taiwan in summer 2001 >to explore ways of diminishing the
threat of war in southeast Asia. A special >attention was placed on the
existing political friction between China and >Taiwan. Both sides of
the Taiwan Straight claim to have their own way on how >to interpret
the events of history to seemingly get what they want >respectively. >
>Two Sides of the Same Coin > > China claims that Taiwan is an integral
part of its territory and that >the government of Taiwan consists of a
bunch of rebels who seceded from the >mainland. On the other hand,
Taiwan claims that it had been the legitimate >government of China
which was overthrown by a bunch of rebels commonly known >as
communists. As a result, this legitimate government took refuge in
Taiwan, >while abandoning the mainland in the hands of the communists
to avoid >unnecessary and needless bloodshed. Hence, both sides agreed
in at least one >item. Both consist of Chinese people like two sides of
the same coin. > > This contention was backed by the whole world for
quite a few years >after this event took place, as revealed by the fact
that the government of >Taiwan remained a part of the UN Social
Security Council. Of course, as time >rolled on the world came to grips
with reality and recognized the communist >government of Beijing as the
legitimate government of China which had then >replaced the government
of Taiwan in the UN Social Security Council. >
Did Hongkong ever reach that stage MR.HAMJATTA? > For more than 50 years
both China and Taiwan had different governments, >each of which dreamed
that one day the other side becomes integrated with it >as one country.
Since the governments of both these two acting nations were >both born,
evolved and developed in a culture of war which had existed >already for a
period of 6,000 years of recorded history, it was very natural >for both
sides to arm themselves to the teeth in the hope that one day the >problem
of unification will be solved through a devastating war. > > What is ironic
is the fact, that the people of both acting nations never >seemed to have
been consulted. A referendum in both China and Taiwan was >never passed to
explore how the people of these two acting nations feel about >the
relationship that should, from now on, exist between China and Taiwan. >
>Unification or Partnership > > In China, a handful(mark you this is a
handful ) of people in the government made it clear that they >have an
agenda of unification to follow and that they will not listen to any
>alternative, far less making any compromise. The very idea of seeing what
the >people of Taiwan really want in the kind of relationship they would
love to >see with China, does not exist, not even remotely. The voice of
the 22 >million people living in Taiwan seems to have no significance at
all. > > On the other hand, the government of Taiwan did proceed to build
new >policies based on more realistic ground. This government has abandoned
the >idea of retaking the mainland, (you see Hamza what your books ommitted
to teach you is that Taiwan also one time in history wanted to retake
mainland ) which it ones governed legitimately, by force. >It reformed its
governmental structure as to create a genuine democratic >nation where
people elect their representatives. Besides, they embarked on >the
development of a strong civilian economy after the example of Japan and
>Germany. In addition, Taiwan began to invest billions of dollars in China
by >constructing new roads and building new bridges and by constructing new
>factories as well as modern housing projects. > > After more than 50 years
of continuous tensions between China and >Taiwan, the time has arrived
where both sides need to reassess the situation >relative to the kind of
new relationship these two flourishing nations must >have between them.
This assessment needs to be based not on what is >politically expedient
but, rather, on what is in the best interest of the >people of the two
nations and their respective civilian economy. The choice >for a
constructive solution is there and it does offer numerous options and
>flexibility is of paramount importance. > > In spite of this, China made
it clear that it will not discuss any >option relative to its relationship
with Taiwan. It continues to maintain >that Taiwan is a break-away province
which is ruled by rebels. Its policy >toward Taiwan is one of
strangulation. This is revealed in the fact that >China does not want any
country on earth to recognize Taiwan as an >independent functioning nation,
the way is has already proved itself to be >for more than 50 years. Not
only so, but China demands of every nation on >earth not to deal with the
government of Taiwan neither directly nor >indirectly. > > What is ironic
is the fact that China itself conducts more business with >Taiwan than,
perhaps, with any other country on earth. Via Hong Kong, the >Chinese
people may visit Taiwan and the Taiwanese people may visit China with
>virtual no restrictions whatsoever. In other words, a climate of
friendship >between China and Taiwan does exist in some way or another even
though in >theory things seem to be quite different. > >Peace Versus War >
> In theory, China could get what it really wants peacefully, fast, and
>smooth. But only if it were to shift its policies, which stem from a
>traditional culture of war, to policies based purely on the newly evolving
>and developing culture of peace. In this regard, Unesco, with its numerous
>peace oriented non governmental organizations of the United Nations, may
>provide some good and useful guideline to this end. China must keep in
mind >that one catches flies more with honey than with threats of a
devastating >war. > > We learn from a recorded history of 6,000 years of
civilization that >when people are threatened, rather than giving up they
become more determined >to resist to their last breath if necessary. Hence,
this explains the slogan >adopted by the international peace conference
which was scheduled in Taiwan >in summer 2001 which ran with the words:
Peace Yes -- Missiles No. If China >decides to put missiles aimed at
Taiwan, history has taught us that Taiwan >would do likewise. It would put
its own missiles aimed at China. Here we need >to bring to our attention
the words of Pope Pius XII who, on the eve of World >War II, told to both
the Germans and the British: "Remember, in a war >everyone is a loser and
no one is a winner." > > In 1945, Germany lost the war and its economy
collapsed because it was >devastated. At the same time, Great Britain won
the war and its economy >equally collapsed because it was devastated as
well. Besides, as a result of >"winning" the war, the British Empire
collapsed and Great Britain lost all of >its territories on every
continent. The words of Pope Pius XII may as well be >directed to both
China and Taiwan. Each must keep in mind, particularly >China, that in a
war everyone is a loser and no one is a winner. > > Resorting to war for
the solution of any problem reveals tremendous lack >of wisdom to say the
most and a great foolishness to say the least. Besides, >the vast majority
of the nations of the world would prefer not to conduct >business with any
country that is at war with another nation. Again, everyone >would be a
loser and no one a winner! > > One of the most curious elements which
developed in history has been the >institution of the military. Its purpose
has never been to promote peace, as >most governments contend, but merely
to wage war. Ironically, every >government in history which waged war
claimed to have done so for "defense >purposes!" In practice this so called
"defense" has always proven to be the >"safeguard and justification of
every atrocious and belligerent action that >was taken by the military,
even without any justification whatsoever. > >Healthy and Constructive
Dialogue > > All problems of the world could be solved through a healthy
and >constructive dialogue without any exception whatsoever. This would
always be >possible if we were to keep in mind the universal welfare of all
people >involved without exception. Once we start taking into consideration
the >advantages of one group of people to the exclusion of another group of
>people, then such a dialogue would cease to be healthy and constructive. >
> This explains why the United Nations, after more than 50 years of its
>existence, has not succeeded to bring about a permanent peace into the
world. >Most nations meet other nations with an agenda of their own which
they want >to implement by all means possible. Even prior to their
presentation of their >agenda, they have already closed their mind to
listen to any possible >alternative that may perhaps lead to some kind of
modification or compromise. >This approach is especially observed in the
big powers or big nations whose >approach would be for all practical
purposes: "Be reasonable, do it our own >way!" > > To make things worse,
most nations seem to believe that the modification >of ideas, and anything
which may lead to a compromise, is to be viewed as a >sign of weakness
rather than as a sign of strength in the pursuit of peace. >The concept of
virtue, which is so essential in the pursuit of peace, does >not seem to
exist in the mind of most of our leading politicians. Considering >that
peace, by its very nature, is spiritual and not material, we may begin >to
realize the importance of the formulated slogan: Peace Yes -- Missiles No.
> > Since peace evolves from the inside of the individual, we may fully
>realize the importance to be humble, prudent, patient, generous, kind,
but, >at the same time, determined and firm in pursuing goals which are in
the best >interest of all people without exception. Hence, we may begin to
understand >why a healthy and constructive dialogue would achieve much more
in the best >interest and benefit of everyone concerned, than tons of
weapons of >destruction that would make most certainly everyone involved a
loser. > > Can China and Taiwan proceed to resolve their political
differences >peacefully? The answer is definitely in the affirmative but
only if the >culture of war that is being used to this end is replaced by
the culture of >peace. China is misleading itself by thinking that when a
country, such as >the United States, states that it recognizes Taiwan is a
part of China, such >a statement would mean that China has a right to take
over Taiwan by all >means conceivable. > >Taiwan and Tibet Contrasted > >
In fact, the United States made it clear that it will "not" allow China >to
use military means to annex the island with the mainland. China must keep
>in mind that Taiwan is not Tibet. While Tibet was a totally disarmed
nation, >Taiwan is fully armed to the teeth mostly by the United States.
The >government of China could have Taiwan become an integral part of the
mainland >if its culture of war policies were to be replaced by a culture
of peace >diplomacy. > > As far as a possible future reunification is
concerned between China and >Taiwan, it would be infinitely more beneficial
for China to try to seek the >support and trust of the people in Taiwan
themselves regardless of the >outside world, than the other way round, as
revealed in the current China >foreign policy. At this stage of history,
China is faced with a clear cut >alternative relative to its relations with
Taiwan: > > 1. Continue toward Taiwan the present policy of isolation and
>strangulation, while keeping on calling this island nation a break away
>province ruled by rebels rather than legitimately elected government
>officials, or ........ > 2. Develop a new diplomatic approach which would
reveal great dignity >and respect for the Taiwanese people in a way that
the natives of this island >nation would feel thoroughly at ease and no
longer threatened by China. > > Since World War II was over, we have had
quite a few nations which were >formed from a previously one undivided
nation, like East and West Germany, >North and South Vietnam, North and
South Yemen, as well as North and South >Korea. All of these countries had
one basic thing in common. Each side >recognized the legitimacy of the
other side in practice. As a result, a >healthy and constructive dialogue
was developed and, with the exception of >the Korean case, all have been
reunited as one nation. The cry of the world >for both China and Taiwan is
clear: Peace Yes -- Missiles No. The fate of 22 >million Taiwanese cannot
be decided without their input and full consent. >This is merely in
accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of >Human Rights.
> **************************************** > Distribution List > >Charles
Mercieca, Ph.D. >President >International Association of Educators for
World Peace (iAEWP) >NGO, UN (ECOSOC), UNDPI, UNICEF, UNCED & UNESCO
>Professor of History and Philosophy >Alabama A&M University (AAMU) >P. O.
Box 3282 - Mastin Lake Station >Huntsville, AL 35810-0282 USA >Phone:
256-534-5501 >Fax: 256-536-1018 >[log in to unmask]
>http://www.earthportals.com/Portal-Messenger/mercieca.htmI > >Dr. Larry T.
Gell >Director-General >International Headquarters >International Agency
for Economic Development (IAED) >United Nations Plaza >P. O. Box 2260-GCS
>New York, NY 10163-2260 >212-687-1775 >Cel: 1-646-621-6161 >Fax:
212-697-2363 >[log in to unmask] >[log in to unmask] >http://www.iaed.org
>http://www.mnn.org > >Dr. Hong Tao Tze >Shih-Ho Seng >Zhang Men Ren of Tai
Ji Men >President, Tai Ji Men Qigong Academy >Director, World Citizens
Assembly (WCA) 2001 >Honorary Vice President, Association of World Citizens
(AWC) UN/NGO >President, Association of World Citizens in Taiwan UN/NGO
>President, Federation of World Peace and Love >No. 136, Keelung Rd. Sec. 2
>Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C. >Tel: 011-886-2-2736-5188 >Fax: 011-886-2-2736-8789
>TEL: (626) 286-0989 U.S.A. >FAX: (626) 286-7008 U.S.A.
>[log in to unmask] >http://www.wca2001.org.tw >http://www.taijimen.org
>www.fowpal.org
>********************************************************************** >*
Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman, GLOSAS/USA * >* (GLObal Systems
Analysis and Simulation Association in the U.S.A.) * >* Laureate of Lord
Perry Award for Excellence in Distance Education * >* Founder of CAADE * >*
(Consortium for Affordable and Accessible Distance Education) * >*
President Emeritus and V.P. for Technology and Coordination of * >* Global
University System (GUS) * >* 43-23 Colden Street, Flushing, NY 11355-3998,
U.S.A. * >* Tel: 718-939-0928; Fax: 718-939-0656 (day time only--prefer
email) * >* Email: [log in to unmask]; Tax Exempt ID: 11-2999676 * >*
http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/ *
>********************************************************************** >
>_______________________________________________ >gu-l mailing list
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gu-l
------------------------------
>From: Dampha Kebba <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Jawara --- Come-back Kid?
>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:28:01 -0400
>
>Gassama, you know you are lying when you said that Jawara said he wanted to
>come back to lead the Opposition. As far as your other comments about the
>implications of the security of the former president are concerned, I think
>I will just ignore them. More substantive APRC stalwarts than yourself have
>already spoken on the issue. Sedat Jobe said the politically correct thing
>to say and Yankuba Touray, being the ignorant vermin he is, said the exact
>opposite of what Sedat Jobe said to the international community. So, I
>would
>rather deal with those comments than your irrational rattling. So Jawara is
>welcomed to come home and retire but NOT to say that Yaya should NOT lead
>us? What kind of nonsense is this? You are just proving that Gambia is NOT
>a
>free country and Yaya’s utterances that Decree 89 is history, is mere lip
>service.
>
>If you sincerely believe in your contention that Jawara will hamper the
>Opposition (especially UDP), then why NOT encourage him to come home so
>that
>APRC can win the elections? I thought you wanted APRC to win. Finally, I
>take it that your previous hypothesis about NCP and UDP and PPP and NRP has
>been discarded in the dustbin.
>KB
>
>
>
>>From: Jungle Sunrise <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Jawara --- Come-back Kid?
>>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:08:31 +0000
>>
>>Dampha,
>>
>>Ex-president Jawara's security in The Gambia will only become an issue if
>>and when he is allowed to return home. His recent pronouncement that he is
>>willing to come back home to lead the opposition, if they so desire,
>>knowing
>>full well that he is not elligible to stand for election, in order to help
>>us get rid of "this dictatorship", will certainly not help his case to
>>return home. To me, it would have made more sense if he instead engaged
>>the
>>government constructively, in order for him to come and spend the rest of
>>his days in peaceful retirement. If that were the case, the onus would
>>have
>>been on the government to provide with all the security and protocol
>>befitting a former head of state. If he expects to be given a red carpet
>>welcome and inspect a guard of honour, then he is dreaming. Any right
>>thinking man would realise that no amount of pressure or threats will
>>prevail on this government to allow him to come back home unconditionally
>>while the APRC is still in power.
>>
>>As for the impact of his association with the opposition, particluarly the
>>UDP, my instincts tell me that it will be counter productive. His
>>mis-rule,
>>refusal to willingly relinquish power when he had the chance, coupled with
>>the rampant corruption that he presided upon whilst in power is only too
>>fresh in the minds of many Gambians. It will also give credense to the
>>claim
>>by some that the UDP is a party of disgruntled elements whose main agenda
>>is
>>for the restoration of the PPP olygarchy. This view can be further
>>supported
>>by the recent appointment to the PPP interim committee of Shyngle Nyassi
>>while still retaining his leadership of the UDP Youthwing.
>>
>>These are my views on the "comeback kid".
>>
>>Have a good day, Gassa.
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your
>full name and e-mail address.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
