Former US president Jimmy Carter lambasted British Prime Minister Tony Blair over the weekend for participating in US President George W. Bush's Iraq adventure. Carter might show a little more gratitude. It is Bush's achievement to have displaced him from the ignominy of bottom place in the roll call of modern American chief executives.
Historians will surely judge that Bush's two terms of office have done much more damage to US interests, and indeed to those of the world, than Carter's blunders a generation ago.
A few months ago I heard a British diplomat in Washington bemoan the horrors of the current administration. We must just somehow stagger through to the end, he muttered.
I said that it seemed rash to assume the next US president would be perfectly to the taste of Britain, or the world, because few people elected to the White House ever are.
He said: "Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be worse than what we have got now."
This has become hard to dispute. Whatever happens between now and January 2009, the next US president will inherit a legacy of global mistrust, alienation and loss of respect unknown in modern times.
It is unlikely that Bush will admit the logic of defeat in Iraq and start withdrawing. It will fall to his successor to face that humiliation, which will dominate the first stage of a new administration.
Who will that successor be? Eight months before the first presidential primary, US Democratic senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are clear frontrunners. One or the other will probably secure their party's nomination, though it is less certain that a Democrat will inherit the White House.
The Republicans, and explicitly Senator John McCain, are deeply tarnished by Iraq, but it seems rash at this stage to rule them out of the race. If, for instance, there is a major al-Qaeda attack on the US between now and the election in November next year, this would prompt a sharp political swing to the right.
In 2004, Bush was able to convince a majority of the US people that their security demanded the continuance of offensive action, explicitly in Iraq and Afghanistan. It might be supposed that subsequent experience has taught them differently. But if a large number of people died in another domestic terrorist attack, the visceral reaction would be to avenge them abroad.
Even after the Bush experience, Republicans are perceived as better at defense than Democrats. Frightened people in the US could still turn to a Republican candidate, even one who today we have scarcely heard of, in preference to Clinton or Obama.
In the absence of a terrorist atrocity, however, the Democrats have a lot going for them. It is extraordinary to recall the loathing that former US president Bill Clinton and his wife inspired when they left the White House in January 2001.
In the early months of Bush's first term, a host of people in the US continued to rejoice at the departure from the Oval Office of "the adulterer," as they called Bill Clinton. The squalor of his last years, the inquisitions and lies, the manner in which his obsession forced itself upon the attention of the world filled them with embarrassment and disgust.
Hillary Clinton, rather than inspiring pity as the wronged wife, was deemed the president's partner in shame. This cold, humorless, boundlessly ambitious woman commanded no more regard then her husband. There was much hand-wringing when she gained a New York Senate seat.
But seven years is an eternity in politics. To be sure, out there in the Bible belt they will never come to love Hillary, nor indeed trust any Clinton. The cargo hold of her campaign plane may be stuffed with too much political baggage to achieve a flight back to the White House.
Yet those who are not committed foes see a clever, poised, impressive candidate who has worked her passage from 2001. She can claim to be the repository of eight years' experience of national government. Her husband's sexual excesses never troubled foreign leaders as they did his own people. Since leaving office, Bill Clinton's fluency, wit and high intelligence have made him overwhelmingly the most popular and influential US tourist in the world's capitals.
During his presidential years, Clinton's caution often irked US allies, notably in the context of the Balkans and the Middle East peace process. His style was to try an idea, explore an initiative and swiftly withdraw in the face of difficulties.
Both former British prime minister John Major and Blair were dismayed by his reluctance to commit ground troops to Balkan peacekeeping, or to exert real pressure on Israel.
Yet now we have seen what followed -- the disastrous cost of ill- judged US boldness -- Clinton's wariness looks to possess more virtue than it did at the time.
As president, Hillary Clinton would be likely to follow her husband's foreign-policy example, and indeed she has promised to engage him as a roving ambassador.
All those watching Obama on the campaign trail hail his star quality. He possesses much more understanding of, and sensitivity to, the outside world than Bush ever has. It is too soon to guess how he will stand up to the stresses of the long, long campaign; or whether, at the last ditch, residual racism in US society would hurt him at the ballot box.
To make him president would be to take a huge gamble with his inexperience of government. But the world as well as the US find it increasingly easy to believe that either Obama or Hillary Clinton would represent a great leap forward from the apology for leadership in the White House today.
Some pessimism persists in high places about how long it will take the US to extricate itself from Iraq after the 2009 inauguration. Yet I am heartened by a memory from the past. Flying out of Saigon on the April day in 1975 when the city fell to the communists, I remember wondering whether it would take the US one decade or two to recover from that ghastly trauma. Yet just 14 months later, when I was in New York to report on the US' bicentennial celebrations, I found it awesome to behold the manner in which the country had shrugged off its Vietnam adventure.
"For this one day," the great CBS commentator Walter Cronkite told the nation's television viewers, "let us be sunshine patriots."
To be sure, many shadows lingered after Indochina, but the US' deep residual self-confidence reasserted itself. It is the country's weakness to remember little about the past, but its huge strength to shake off bad history and get on with the next thing.
The last 20 months of Bush will seem interminable. As my diplomat friend in Washington said, the world must just muddle through them as best it can, noses held and teeth clenched.
What may follow the US withdrawal from Iraq is likely to be horrible. But if a new president acts swiftly, we may be surprised by how soon the US recovers from its self-inflicted wounds. Then, if we are fortunate, it can begin to restore its shattered moral authority abroad.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS