Germany's phoney election war is set to come to an end this week when President, Horst Koehler rules on whether to grant Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder an early poll.
Schroeder rocked Germany's political establishment by announcing in late May that he wanted to bring forward by a year the country's national election, originally slated for September next year.
The move followed a humiliating defeat for his Social Democrats (SDP) in a key state poll in what was once the party's political heartland.
While the country's major parties have already swung into election mode, some observers say they may be jumping the gun: Unlike in other Western democracies, the road to early elections is relatively complicated in Germany and some obstacles have yet to be overcome.
Legal experts have already raised questions about whether Schroeder's grounds for seeking an election adhere to the country's constitution, which was drawn up as a result of the political instability in pre-war Germany and which sets out strict rules for calling early polls.
As a result, the pressure is mounting on Koehler, who has to announce his decision by today if Germany is to go the polls on Sept.18, seen by pundits as the ideal election date.
Most in Germany believe that Koehler, who occupies a mainly ceremonial position and who is unlikely to go against the wishes of the major parties, will grant the early election.
Failure to go ahead with the poll would mean "stagnation -- with a declining faith in the parliamentary system and the ability of political decision-making in Germany," said Ludolf von Wartenberg, managing director of the Federation of German Industry.
However the president's task has been made even more problematic: A Green member of parliament is threatening to challenge the early elections in the country's constitutional court.
While most also believe that the court is unlikely to go against a decision by both the president and chancellor, there is still the outside chance of an upset, which would leave Koehler in a very difficult position.
If the challenge is mounted, a delay in the court making a ruling -- which in normal circumstances takes about four weeks -- could still push the polls back some time.
Never shy of taking big gambles, Schroeder moved dramatically to regain the political initiative by pressing for the election. The German leader hopes that gaining a fresh mandate for a third term will allow him to push on with long-overdue reforms to Europe's biggest economy.
He set in the wheels in motion by engineering a vote of no-confidence in the lower house of parliament on July 1.
The question that is dividing legal opinion as Koehler considers his move is whether Schroeder has amply demonstrated that parliament has a lack of confidence in his chancellorship.
Critics say his party's coalition with the Greens was showing no sign of breaking up and that he still enjoyed the confidence of the parliament -- some 40 bills were passed only the day before the confidence vote.
Constitutional expert Wolf-Ruediger Schenke said Koehler must reject the request for the dissolution of parliament, saying the desire of Germany's political parties for a new election should not play a role in weighing up the legal arguments for the new poll.
Leading in the opinion polls, the conservative-led opposition have seized on the prospects of an early election as giving them a chance to topple Schroeder one year early than planned.
But with deep divisions having emerged in the country about the pace, scale and direction of reform, neither major political bloc might be able to garner enough votes to forge a parliamentary majority.
The country may therefore face a period of political uncertainty, being governed by a grand coalition of the biggest parties in the new parliament.
For whatever reason, if the early election does not materialize, SPD chief Franz Muentefering has said that Schroeder plans to stay in the chancellor's office until the current parliamentary cycle runs its course in September next year.
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