The fate of the unfortunate sailors of the Russian submarine Kursk remains, at the time of writing, unknown. But the incident serves to remind us that Taiwan is not the only country that handles rescue missions with a less than adequate mixture of the necessary skill, haste and decisiveness. The parallel is of course with the Pachang Creek
We are not, of course, trying to suggest that throwing a rope across a river to enable four people to walk to safety across a flood emplacement is anything close to as complicated as rescuing more than 100 men from a metal tomb submerged 100m in freezing Arctic seas; the two are obviously in a different league.
What isn't so very different however, is the way the Russian authorities seem to have messed up the situation, the reasons for their doing so and the political background that gives rise to such incompetence.
Both incidents take place against a political background where decades of unrepresentative government have led to ossified bureaucracies in which keeping face and dodging responsibility are paramount and providing responsive service almost an afterthought. Economics has little to do with this. Russia's economy has been a mess for at least as long as Taiwan's has been booming. The major reason why the two countries are a shambles when it come to the effectiveness of their bureaucracies is the decades-long lack of political openness.
It's a simple equation. Politicians who are unpopular lose their jobs. To hold on to those jobs, they have to make sure that the government departments they are in charge of function -- and function well. Should a snafu come to public attention, and there is a free press to ask embarrassing questions and point accusatory fingers, then they can see their careers end overnight.
That Russia has historically been a stranger to such a political system is hardly news. And it also probably true that its condition as an economic basket case has held back reformist influences since the "downfall" of communism in 1991.
So why should Taiwan, after a decade of democratic reform, seem at times almost as shambolic as its giant near neighbor? Simply because democracy, at least for its first 10 years in Taiwan only ever meant free elections. Nobody in government ever seemed to think that their jobs were on the line, that the KMT could lose office. The China bogeyman would scare voters into submissiveness. It was a strategy that worked remarkably well and one of its by-products was that nobody in government ever had to take the concept of public service seriously. Giving the Taiwanese what a score of PhDs thought they should have was the name of the government's game. Finding out what they wanted and finding ways to give it to them, always took a back seat.
Lien Chan's
Chen Shui-bian's
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath