There was a considerable amount of misreporting about what happened in Florida after the November 7 election, including misunderstandings and outright distortions that arose during the post-election contest. There has been even more misunderstanding of how events in Florida will affect the foreign policy of President-elect George W. Bush. Let me correct a few of the more egregious errors by the international media. \nFirst, there is no evidence that any voters, particularly racial minorities, faced even the slightest discrimination, intimidation or any other impediment to the legitimate casting of their ballots in Florida. No fair-minded media reporters have found any such evidence, nor has an ongoing Justice Department investigation, conducted by the outgoing Clinton administration, found any violations of federal civil rights laws. \nSecond, the presidential vote in Florida was close, as it was nationwide, and Florida's electoral votes turned out to be dispositive. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that both major presidential candidates were determined that the state's popular votes were accurately counted. \nWhile the procedure for doing so was far from perfect, the criticisms leveled against Florida and its counties, especially in international circles, were wildly off the mark. Many criticisms centered on the lack of national voting methods and procedures, as if the election practices of a homogeneous, medium-sized European country could be readily applied to a diverse, continental power. \nMoreover, such criticisms prove too much, because they necessarily question the very federal structure of the US. Yet imagine if the Electoral College system were abandoned; a close vote in Florida could have triggered recounts all around the country, making a difficult problem far worse. Ironically, by resorting to strained legal theories and hoping for rescue by activist courts, Vice President Gore made a reliable hand recount impossible. This is unfortunate, but does not in any way detract from the legitimacy of the final outcome. \nSo, where does this leave the new President? The critical fact is that George W. Bush and his team will direct foreign policy. The US does not have a parliamentary system, and it will not be operating under a coalition government. There is only one president, with a constitutionally defined term of four years. These structural realities mean, by definition, that the new president will have at his command all of the enormous governmental power of the US -- political, economic and military -- from noon on January 20 forward. Whatever happened before will be of no matter after Chief Justice William Rehnquist administers the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." \nSome commentators argue that the close Electoral College result, and the fact that Vice President Gore received more popular votes will weaken the Bush presidency, and that it will not have a clear "mandate" to govern. No one, of course, can deny the election's closeness, but that statistic is already fading from significance. The reality of international affairs means that issues that only the president can decide will be thrust before him immediately. In short, the only "mandate" he needs after January 20 will be the one he receives when he sits behind his Oval Office desk every morning. From that point forward, it will be his performance in office that matters, not what the popular or Electoral College votes were. \nDuring the campaign, Bush's opponents complained about his lack of foreign policy experience. This assumes, of course, that experience counts for more than judgment, a dubious proposition at best. Moreover, no new president assumes office with command of every substantive policy area that he must eventually master. For now, President Bush will have to concentrate his energies on preventing the US economy sliding into recession. His success or failure on this issue will have profound global implications, and probably be more significant than superficial attempts to "engage" on less important foreign policy issues. Finally, the US is eager to look forward, and to have the new president restore honor and integrity to his office. Even supporters of other candidates agree that the departing president's personal conduct has been appalling and shameful, and the desire to look forward is a deep and intrinsically important component of America's national character. The post-election recounts and contests will be debated for decades to come by scholars and students. But for today, one thing is already certain: the Florida chapter is now history. \nJohn Bolton is the senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute. During the previous Bush Administration, he served as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
Asked whether he declined to impose sanctions against China, US President Donald Trump said: “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal... [W]hen you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot.” It was not a proud moment for Trump or the US. Yet, just three days later, John Bolton’s replacement as director of the National Security Council, Robert O’Brien, delivered a powerful indictment of the Chinese communist government and criticized prior administrations’ “passivity” in the face of Beijing’s contraventions of international law
In an opinion piece, Chang Jui-chuan (張睿銓) suggested that Taiwan focus its efforts not on making citizens “bilingual,” but on building a robust translation industry, as Japan has done (“The social cost of English education,” June 29, page 6). Although Chang makes some good points — Taiwan could certainly improve its translation capabilities — the nation needs a different sort of pivot: from bilingualism to multilingualism. There are reasons why Japan might not be the most suitable role model for the nation’s language policy. Bluntly put, Japan’s status in the world is unquestioned. The same cannot be said of Taiwan. Many confuse