Last Thursday, South Korean voters elected the leftist, soft-on-North-Korea Roh Moo-hyun, whose policies are in many ways at odds with US policy. Irrespective of how shocking this may be to many in the democratic world, it must accept the reality. It is worthwhile for Taiwan to analyze and learn from this election, given that the two countries lend each other to comparison on many levels.
Taiwan and South Korea not only are close geographically, but they also went through similar post-war experiences. Despite their similarities, it cannot be denied that because the two countries typically ignore and look down on one another, they have very little mutual understanding. Therefore, local analysts often tend to draw very superficial comparisons with South Korea. So, when a major event occurs in South Korea, Taiwan may have difficulty finding experts to make in-depth and professional analysis. Therefore, when the results of the South Korean presidential election became known, Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Presidential Office were still unable to obtain a first-rate election evaluation. What happened to all the Korean experts in Taiwan? Why did they make erroneous evaluations and judgements? Could it be that they are making judgements based on their personal preferences and ideologies?
Taiwanese must admit they are slow to implement reforms and craft new social policies. The South Koreans are much more brave and determined about seeking innovation, and accepting challenges. The founder of Taiwan's Shinkong (新光集團) Group, the late Wu Huo-su (吳火獅), once said: "Maintaining the status quo is the same as falling behind." But how many Taiwanese understand this? When content, Taiwanese don't want to be a sour grape by pointing out that the country is falling behind South Korea in development.
Taiwan has much to learn from last week's presidential election in South Korea:
First, there was a certain degree of political consolidation in South Korea. The melodramatic performance of the ruling camp in this regard must have shocked the pan-blue camp. Mergers between political camps are, without exception born of trade-offs. They could never derive from a "mission" or moral values or even the fight for some ethnic group. Viewed this way, the pan-blue's failure to coalesce is fairly easy to comprehend. There is no need to make too many excuses for the rift or accuse anyone of being manipulative.
Second, democracy rarely backtracks. In South Korea, five years after the first change of ruling party and the radical reformer Kim Dae-jung took over the presidency, the country simply could not return to such a conservative path. Lee Hoi-chang's defeat was destined, since he represented the conservative "old-man political era." He stands as someone against change and progress. Isn't progress in democracy also the biggest catalyst for social progress?
Third, both the ruling and opposition camps of Taiwan were hoping before the election that whoever wins will serve their political interests or at least make policy that is beneficial to them. There are also those who hope that their old ties with South Korea will still be useful after the election, so as to help strengthen bilateral relationship between the two countries. They would do well to search for common language and values with the president-elect Roh. That is a better way to start solidifying the bilateral relationship. At a time when democracy, human rights, freedom of the press and change of ruling party have become the experience of Taiwan and South Korea, much potential for cooperation exists.
Don't miss out on the opportunities.
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.
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