In South Korea, political infighting led on Monday to a vote of no-confidence in Unification Minister Lim Dong-won, one of President Kim Dae-jung's confidantes and the resignation of the entire Cabinet the following day. Kim's coalition partner, the United Lib-eral Democrats (ULD), turned the tables on him, causing four lawmakers to leave the party, thereby reducing the ULD to less than 20 parliamentary seats and disqualifying it from striking deals in parliament.
This political tempest has revealed at least two problems. The first is whether or not the Kim government's "sunshine" policy of pursuing contacts with North Korea will survive. The second is whether Kim Dae-jung will continue to run his minority government, now that he has formally split with ULD chief Kim Jung-pil -- or will he be a lame duck, with more political chaos forecasted for the next year or two?
The political uproar in South Korea is more than a struggle between the ruling and opposition parties; it is an overture to next year's presidential election. The opposition parties voted against the "sunshine" policy because in the 15 months since the North-South summit the policy has created a confusion in national identity nationwide. The policy also eroded trust between the ruling and opposition parties as a dispute continued to flare over whether Seoul should be harder or softer toward Pyongyang. The Seoul government has been trying a balancing act, teetering between the rising tide of nationalism within South Korea and the wider international environment.
President Kim has also been guilty of arrogance, governing with an authoritarian, paternalistic style -- despite his government's minority status -- and ignoring public opinion. His political style goes against today's democratic trends -- as evidenced by his efforts to seek personal credit by holding a summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-il at all costs, ignoring the fact that the international environment was not yet mature enough for such a meeting.
In willfully pursuing his "sunshine" policy, Kim's administration has ignored the international situation and the US' strategic arrangements in the western Pacific. Kim's repeated goodwill gestures toward Pyongyang have proven to be of limited benefit. Because the situation in the Korean Peninsula has a direct bearing on all of East Asia, Seoul's neighbors are keeping a close watch. At the same time, developments in South Korea can serve as a lesson for the Chen Shui-bian (
One can draw a parallel between the "sunshine" policy and the decision made at the recent Economic Development Advisory Conference to relax the "no haste, be patient" policy against China. The failure of Kim's policy sends a strong warning to Taiwan as it prepares to relax its controls toward China. One has to question how a democratic civil society -- where the middle class makes up a majority of the population -- can unconditionally appease and open itself up to an isolationist one-party communist society?
Certainly, the situation across the Taiwan Strait is not exactly the same as that on the Korean Penin-sula. However, the interaction between Seoul and Pyongyang can serve as a mirror for the two sides of the Strait. If the "sunshine" policy becomes a lame duck like Kim Dae-jung himself, then the people of Taiwan should start thinking seriously about whether they can continue to open up unconditionally toward a still hostile China.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with