When US Senator Edward Kennedy warned this week that the crisis in Iraq may be turning into "George Bush's Vietnam" he sent a shudder down the spines of Americans for whom a defeat and 55,000 US deaths remain a national trauma.
As British Prime Minister Tony Blair heads for New York and Washington this week -- amid stern declarations of unflinching solidarity with US President George W. Bush in Iraq -- a similar challenge faces him.
So far Blair has been lucky in the timing of the latest surge of fighting. Now on holiday, the prime minister might have been expected to speak out as the conflict flared inside Iraq. But parliament is in recess until next Monday, giving him breathing space to assess the position and reshape policy.
On Friday that opportunity began to look like a problem. As reports of more hostage-taking and fighting came in from Iraq, Blair was on the first day of his trip to the British territory of Bermuda. His departure -- leaving UK Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott in charge -- came after a week in which ministers have been notably absent from the airwaves.
That same day, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw appeared on BBC Radio 4's The World At One to admit that the coalition faced the "most serious" threat since the end of the war. Some detected a new, more critical tone towards the US military's approach to the insurgency. Ceasefires, not confrontation, are the way to moveforward, he seemed to be saying.
Straw's appearance came amid increased concern in Downing Street that the government's position was being damaged by its apparent silence as critics of the war took to the airwaves. The government is anxious to avoid the impression that it is running scared.
Yet the picture for Blair is more complex. In Britain -- unlike the US where the election campaign is under way -- Iraq has not become a dividing point between the main parties. The latest critical foray on the airwaves last Thursday of former UK foreign secretary Robin Cook, who resigned over the decision to go to war, is the worst No. 10 has endured so far. There is no equivalent of John Kerry, the Democrats' candidate for president, after Blair's job.
Like the ardently Bushite former Tories leader Iain Duncan Smith, opposition Conservative leader Michael Howard is pro-US and believes the overthrow of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was justified and will be vindicated. He cannot attack Blair too much without being called opportunistic and has pulled his punches.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy's position is more similar to that of Kerry, albeit without his Vietnam vet's chestful of medals. But Kennedy must tread a narrow line between legitimate scrutiny of government mistakes and charges of ignorance or disloyalty. He too sounds muted.
Labour's Donald Anderson, chairman of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, just back from Washington, confirms that Blair's stock remains very high in the US capital and that doors open to British members of parliament as a result; less so for what are seen as the crypto-pacifists in coalitions across what is dismissed as "old Europe."
But the price in terms of domestic popularity and trust is high and may be getting higher. It is no longer impossible to imagine that Bush will lose the presidency on Nov. 2 and Blair be forced to stand aside for his heir apparent before Britain's own election.
Little wonder that Downing Street has not organized a press plane to follow Blair to see UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the UN on Thursday night and on to the White House the next day. The two leaders talk regularly by phone -- as they did last Wednesday -- but need private "face time" occasionally.
This is not a "crisis" summit, aides stress. The trip was set for spring or early summer, not too close to the Democratic and Republican conventions in July and September. Wisely or not, Bush wants his jamboree close to Sept. 11.
It's understandable that Blair does not want too much made of his trip. Jose Maria Aznar's defeat in Spain is not an encouraging omen. British voters have a chance to kick Labour in local and European elections on June 10.
Nor can Bush's closest Iraq ally be seen to be other than strictly neutral in the US campaign, whatever the private views on the best result for Blair which commentators -- on little or no evidence -- ascribe to him. As he showed in 2000, Blair is nimble-footed enough to adapt to either outcome; as ever, London will seek to remain the EU-US bridge.
But what will his friend Tony feel able to say to Bush? Aides stress the on-message determination not to be forced out of Iraq and to stick to the June 30 deadline for the handover of power.
It is likely that Blair will gently seek to impress Britain's hard-won experience at counter-insurgency and low-intensity urban warfare, hoping to render the US approach more subtle and more acceptable -- in Iraq and beyond.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS