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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
RSS