President George W. Bush's abilities as an opening batsman may be tested when he visits Pakistan this week. US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said that when Bush attends a "cricket event" on Saturday in Islamabad, it is uncertain whether he plans to watch or play. "Who knows what he'll do?"
As Bush steps up to the crease, the official spin on his one-day visit, which follows a trip to India and precedes a stopover in Afghanistan, is that Washington has Pakistan's interests at heart.
The bilateral agenda includes counter-terrorism, the Kashmir dispute with India, and elections promised next year by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup.
But Bush, pointing to US help after last October's earthquake, is keen to show the common touch.
"This is a relationship that's much bigger than the `war on terror,'" he told Pakistani television at the weekend. Pakistanis should know "that the American people care about them."
This feeling is not reciprocated in some quarters. Much of the country is in uproar, ostensibly over the Danish cartoons scandal.
Islamist parties, principally the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), have used the row and visit to stoke opposition to Musharraf and his US alliance, linking it to "anti-Muslim" US actions along the Afghan border and in Iraq and exploiting economic discontent.
Musharraf's hold on power is weaker than at any time since 1999, said Ayaz Amir, a Dawn newspaper columnist. "Since beleaguered governments are prone to clutch at straws, we can expect Islamabad to gloat over the Bush visit. Given the tide of anti-Americanism on which the country is afloat, it is more likely to be a huge embarrassment if not an outright kiss of death."
Graham Usher, writing from Islamabad for The Nation, said the JI linked the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency to jihadi groups in Afghanistan and Kashmir -- until Musharraf got in the way. He suggested the army could move against him if events spun out of control, as it had against previous leaders.
"The Islamists in Pakistan have never been so powerful," he said.
A government official said that was an exaggeration.
"The Islamist parties have street power but as far as voting power is concerned, Pakistan is a very moderate society," he said.
Musharraf had strengthened grassroots democracy, he said, and the economy was expanding. Next year's elections, including a presidential contest, would go ahead.
But Human Rights Watch said Bush should press Musharraf to stand down, claiming he had weakened mainstream political parties and democratic processes.
"Statements from pro-government politicians appear to be setting the stage for Musharraf's continued rule past 2007," the group said. "The US should not allow Musharraf to exploit his alliance in the `war on terror' to entrench himself further in power."
Bush, a keen Musharraf admirer, is likely to ignore such advice. Although the US says it wants faster progress on restoring democracy, Pakistan's primary importance to Washington remains its key role in helping fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
In India, similarly hard-headed calculations will be in play. Bush will seek a strengthened strategic and economic partnership, partly through nuclear cooperation, to help offset the rise of China.
He says he will push for a Kashmir solution. But more pressing in American eyes is the need to stiffen Indian support for apparently contradictory curbs on Iran's nuclear activities. The US is also urging cancelation of a joint gas pipeline project with Tehran.
As in Pakistan, such US aims are highly controversial. To achieve them, Bush will need to show deft footwork amid much hostile bowling.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s