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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------