March 22 looks to be a big day in Taiwan. That’s the day the island’s two major political parties, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Kuomintang (KMT), face off in presidential elections. But the vote getting most of the international attention, particularly from across the Taiwan Strait in Beijing, are two referendum questions proposing Taiwan apply for UN membership (BBC). The two questions reflect the each party’s particular vision of Taiwan’s future. The referendum designed by the DPP, which favors independence for Taiwan, asks whether the government should seek to join the United Nations in the name of Taiwan. The KMT, which wants closer ties with China, will ask whether the island should seek to return to the United Nations with a pragmatic and flexible approach using Republic of China, its official name, Taiwan, or any other suitable designation.

These nuances apparently are lost on Beijing, which claimed the Chinese seat at the United Nations in 1971. China’s government has publicly warned Taiwan (Reuters) it may pay a heavy cost for its UN vote. Russia, Australia and United States have also condemned the idea, which the United States calls provocative (WashPost).

This latest round of heightened tensions across the strait has once again raised fears of armed hostilities between China and Taiwan, with all the geopolitical repercussions that would have for the United States and its allies in the Pacific Rim. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte, in an interview with CFR.org, says the United States is concerned about the “military buildup on the PRC’s side of the strait.” According to some estimates, Beijing has roughly one thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan and continues to add to that number each month. Kenneth Allen of the CNA corporation, a U.S.-based research organization focusing on defense issues, says that for China, Taiwan, and the United States, “trying to decipher the difference between deterrent and aggressive actions is a major issue for regional stability.” China reiterated its concern (China Daily) over U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan, which it fears is emboldening independence forces there.

The United States has consistently stated that its policy toward Taiwan is guided by the Three Communiqués and by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. But John J. Tkacik, Jr., a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, writes that U.S. policy toward Taiwan’s status has been “dogmatically agnostic” and Washington has “not formally recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and [has] not made any determination as to Taiwan's political status.” There is also “strategic ambiguity” in what the United States will actually do if a war breaks out in the strait, writes Alan D. Romberg, director of the East Asia Program at the Henry L. Stimson Center. “Taiwan should not assume that if it provokes war, the United States will necessarily get into it; the PRC should not assume that if it attacks Taiwan, the United States will stay out of it,” says Romberg.

The recent victory of the KMT party over the pro-independence DPP in Taiwan’s January legislative elections has led many experts to believe that relations between China and Taiwan may ease. As this Backgrounder explains, this has been a fragile relationship, and a constant source of tension for Washington. KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou has proclaimed a “three no’s” policy—no unification, no independence, and no use of force—in outlining his planned approach to cross-strait relations. An op-ed in the Korea Times argues that Ma's construct appears to be aimed at “reassuring three main audiences: the people of Taiwan, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and the United States and international community in general.” Negroponte told CFR.org that the United States is urging China that it “shouldn’t try to deprive Taiwan of all of its political space.”

Resolving African Conflicts

Since its disputed election in December, Kenya has descended—with frightening speed—into angry mayhem. Supporters of opposition leader Raila Odinga are upset because they believe the election was stolen; ethnic groups are fighting one another over perceived economic injustices; some armed groups are little more than criminal gangs. As the population grows more polarized, efforts to resolve the political crisis look increasingly inadequate. Kenya’s impasse highlights the difficulty of conflict resolution on a continent that lacks regional leaders but whose complex crises tend to thwart international resolution efforts. The United States has increased pressure on Nairobi (NYT) to compromise, and while Kenya is not on the five-country itinerary of President Bush’s upcoming Africa visit, it’s sure to be on the agenda.

Kenya is just one of several continental calamities. On February 2, rebels attacked N’Djamena and attempted to overthrow Chad’s president. Across the border, the crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region that has displaced millions and left hundreds of thousand dead continues. In the same neighborhood are the conflict in Somalia, considered a failed state, and the border standoff between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which threatens to escalate into war.

African states that were once seen as continental leaders, such as Nigeria and South Africa, are preoccupied with domestic issues. “South Africa and Nigeria need time for internal reflection because previous presidents were very ambitious internationally,” says Alex Vines, head of the Africa program at Chatham House, a British think tank. This leaves a leadership void on the continent, according to some experts, and bodes poorly for long-term security. Mid-sized states such as Ghana and Tanzania show promise, but due to their limited financial resources, it is unlikely they will wield significant influence beyond their subregions.

The African Union suffers from the same lack of strong leadership. While the mantra “African solutions for African problems” has become popular since the establishment of the African Union in 2002, in reality the young organization is ill-equipped to cope with continental crises. Experts say the body, which aims to protect the security of the continent, is already overstretched by peacekeeping in Somalia and Darfur. It has difficulty getting members to pay their dues.

The United Nations devotes significant resources to addressing conflicts in Africa. So far this year, nine of the UN Security Council’s sixteen meetings have been on African countries. The body’s calendar for February (PDF) is dominated by the continent—from Sudan to Somalia to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In Kenya and Chad, international efforts have produced scant results. Attempts by a group of mediators led by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to eke out a power-sharing agreement between Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki and Odinga have made little progress. “The international bodies and countries that might have been expected to squeeze Mr. Kibaki into seeing sense have been incoherent,” writes the Economist. After rebels invaded Chad’s capital, the UN Security Council condemned the attack but did not offer concrete assistance.

The United Nations has provided critical peacekeeping forces in countries such as Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, but such forces are only a piece of the conflict-resolution puzzle. And in the case of Darfur, where the UN Security Council has authorized a 26,000-strong joint UN/AU peacekeeping force, the Sudanese government has obstructed the force on so many fronts that the head of UN peacekeeping says it will take the rest of 2008 for deployment. A planned European Union peacekeeping contingent for Eastern Chad likely precipitated the rebel attack in Chad, says Africa expert Alex de Waal in a CFR.org Podcast. Journalist Simon Roughneen agrees. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” he writes in a commentary for the Online Africa Policy Forum.

Ganguly out of ODI's ,Recommended by Dhoni.?

While dropping of Ganguly is not at all a good decision especially for the triangular series against Australia, i do
not think that the decision is not only based on the recommendation of Dhoni as selectors have final say inn aof players.

Sourav Ganguly’s exclusion: A wrong decision by selectors!

ON JANUARY 20, the national selectors had dropped these senior players from the 16 member squad for the one twenty20 match against Australia on February 1, and the tri series featuring Australia and Sri Lanka, beginning from February 3. VVS Laxman, who made valuable contributions in the ongoing test series against Australia, has also been left out from ODI team.

Uttar Pradesh pacer, Praveen Kumar and left hand batsman Suresh Raina found the place in final 16 due to their superb performance in Ranji Trophy. Ishant Sharma, who had dismissed Australian captain Ricky Ponting in both the innings of the Perth test, has also been included in the ODI team. The 16 member team includes, Mahendra Singh Dhoni (captain), Yuvraj Singh (vice-captain), Sachin Tendulkar, Gautam Gambhir, Virender Sehwag, Irfan Pathan, Suresh Raina, Harbhajan Singh, Robin Uthappa, S Sreesanth, R P Singh, Ishant Sharma, Rohit Sharma, Piyush Chawla, Praveen Kumar and Dinesh Karthik. Munaf Patel, Yusuf Pathan and Manoj Tiwary have been included as standby players, who may join the team in case of any injury to players.

The BCCI’s (Board of Control for Cricket in India) decision has surprised everyone and resulted in massive protests in Ganguly’s hometown Kolkata. As the news of Ganguly was made public, his fans took to the streets of Kolkata. In Kolkata, Ganguly’s fans burnt effigies of the BCCI president Sharad Pawar. Ganguly’s fans also raised slogans against Pawar and demanded Ganguly’s inclusion with posters asking to ‘Bring dada back’. On Ganguly’s exclusion issue the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) said “grave injustice” had been done and said that it would lodge a protest against the BCCI. Talking to media, CAB joint secretary said, “What has been done is totally wrong, grave injustice is being done to him.” He also said, “It seems Dhoni did not want him in the side. Dhoni is more comfortable with juniors so he is in favour of axing seniors. But we will not sit idle. We will lodge a strong protest.”

While talking about the exclusion of Ganguly and Dravid, BCCI secretary Niranjan Shah said, “The emphasis was on fielding abilities and they wanted a young fielding side for the series. That’s why you see a lot of youngsters in the side. The three selectors here had a teleconference with two of their colleagues (Ranjib Biswal and Venkatapathy Raju) and MS Dhoni, who are in Australia, after which the team was selected.”

However, about Ganguly’s possibilities of getting back into the ODI team, BCCI secretary Shah had said, “He is a great player and can come back.”

Ganguly, also known as the ‘Prince of Kolkata’, is a very tough man, as he has already proved in past by making a sensational come back. Surely he will come back into the national side very soon. But, putting much faith on the youngsters at the cost of aggressive and experienced player like Ganguly, seems like an injustice.

If the selectors can include Virender Sehwag in the team, then Ganguly too deserves his place in the team. Most importantly, Australia and Sri Lanka are tough ODI sides and the team needs experienced players like Sourav Ganguly. Now that the team’s responsibility has fallen on the shoulders of youngsters, we should hope for the best. For the selectors we can only hope that they think twice before axing in-form batsman like Ganguly from the team.

According to the BCCI, the decision has been taken by keeping in mind the future prospects of the game. If we consider the statement of BCCI, then it seems that these senior players have been dropped from the side due to below par performances. We do agree that Rahul Dravid had a poor performance in ODI series against Pakistan and Australia, but Ganguly did fairly well with the bat as well as with the ball. So, dropping Ganguly is an injustice done by the BCCI.

During the Pakistan series, after striking double century in Bangalore, Sourav Ganguly do mentioned that he had suffered step-attitude of national selectors in past and got a bad treatment from them. This time too, the selector’s decision had surely disappointed Sourav Ganguly and his fans, and it may affect his game in the future.