While President Chen Shui-bian (
The latest example is the allegation by one newspaper that Chen tried to blackmail Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
If the allegation is true, then Chen committed a criminal offense. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Presidential Office took this matter seriously, demanding a retraction and an apology from the newspaper.
The report said Chen attempted to intimidate Wang into refusing to serve as campaign manager for the Lien Chan (
Premier Su Tseng-chang (
If Chen had hatched the blackmail scheme, why was Wang not subsequently probed by the judiciary? Most pan-blue politicians who have been under judicial investigation end up stating that they are victims of "political persecution" by the Chen administration. Pan-blue dustbuster Chiu Yi (
If Wang had committed some illegal act, what motive would Chen have to cover up the deed on his behalf? After all, Wang did not do as he was allegedly instructed. And if Chen can't stop prosecutors from detaining and investigating his own son-in-law, how could he possibly have stopped a prosecution if Wang were guilty?
It is foolish for the pan-blue camp to be peddling these allegations. If, according to the report, Chen really does have a pile of documents that would verify Wang's involvement in the Zanadau case, then it would harm the interests of a great number of its own people. And if the story is true, neither the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) nor Wang has any reason to gloat.
It was impossible to make sense of KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
Whoever is behind the spread of this conspiracy yarn, there are people who obviously do not want Wang to be too friendly with the Chen government.
For all of these reasons, the newspaper report is more likely the product of tensions within the KMT, and should be treated with considerable skepticism.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS