God bless the Democratic Party's primary voters in Iowa. They may have rescued our chances of succeeding in Iraq and even winning the war of ideas within the Arab-Muslim world. Go Hawkeyes!
How so? Well, it seems to me that Iowa Democrats, in opting for John Kerry and John Edwards over Howard Dean, signaled -- among other things -- that they want a presidential candidate who is serious about fighting the war against the Islamist totalitarianism threatening open societies.
"It was a good night for the [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair Democrats in Iowa," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute. By "Blair Democrats," Marshall was referring to those Democrats who voted for the Iraq war, and conveyed "a toughness and resolve to face down America's enemies," but who believe the Bush team has mismanaged the project. This is so important because there has been no credible opposition to Bush's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Democrats have been intimidated either by Bush or by Dean.
Bush's lightning victory in Iraq intimidated those who favored the war but had reservations about the Bush approach. And then, when things started to go sour in Iraq, Dean's outspoken opposition to the war -- and the eager reception it received from some Democratic activists -- got those Democrats who did vote for the war tied into pretzels, trying to simultaneously justify their war vote and distance themselves from it.
Without a serious Democratic critique of the war -- and I define "serious" as one that connects with the gut middle-American feeling that the Islamist threat had to be confronted, but one that lays out a smarter approach than the Bush team's -- Bush has gotten away with being sloppy and unprepared for postwar Iraq.
My hope is that Iowa will embolden the Blair Democrats to shuck off their intimidation, by Bush and Dean, and press their case. It is the only way to build a national consensus for what's going to be a long Cold-War-like struggle to strengthen the forces of moderation and weaken the forces of violent intolerance within the Arab-Muslim world -- which is what the real war on terrorism is about.
To be successful, Democrats will need a candidate who understands three things -- which Kerry, Lieberman, Clark and Edwards do.
First, this notion, put forward by Dean and former vice president Al Gore, that the war in Iraq has diverted us from the real war on "terrorists," is just wrong. There is no war on "terrorism" that does not address the misgovernance and pervasive sense of humiliation in the Muslim world. Sure, al-Qaeda and former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein pose different threats, Marshall notes, "but they emerge from the same pathology of widespread repression, economic stagnation and fear of cultural decline." Building a decent Iraq is very much part of the war on terrorism.
Second, sometimes smashing someone in the face is necessary to signal to others that they will be held accountable for the intolerance they incubate. Removing the Taliban and Saddam sent that message to every government in the area.
Third, the Iraq war may have created more hatred of the US, but it has also triggered a hugely important dialogue among Arabs and Muslims about the necessity of reform. A serious Democratic candidate, I hope, will force the Bush team to accept the fact that it has failed to create a stable political transition in Iraq and must urgently change course in two ways: (1) It can't succeed in Iraq without forging a rapprochement with Iran, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, they will ensure that we fail. If Iraq works, that will create its own reform pressures around the region. (2) The Bush team has to scrap the complicated caucus system it has devised for choosing an interim Iraqi government. It won't work. The Shiites' demand, though, for immediate elections also won't work. The US should beg the UN to find an Afghan-style solution for Iraq: expand the Governing Council from 25 to 75 people, bring in all strands and make it the interim government -- in return for the US dropping its approach and the Shiites dropping theirs. It is the only way out of this impasse -- the only way to create a decent Iraq that can help us win the war of ideas in the region.
Democrats haven't been able to hold the Bush team accountable because their party couldn't offer a credible alternative. Well, here's hoping that the credible Democratic opposition was just reborn, re-energized and "de-intimidated" by the people of Iowa. Lord knows we need it.
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