Vietnam gets its name from the indigenous ethnic group, while its language borrows heavily from Cantonese. However, its politics come directly from the Marxist-Leninist textbook. The country is ruled by a 15-member politburo, at least six of whom are likely to be replaced at this congress, according to US diplomats. The real power lies with three men: the party general secretary, Nong Duc Manh, the state president, Nguyen Minh Triet, and the prime minister, Nguyen Tan Dung.
Manh is due to retire, and US cables predict that Dung and politburo member Truong Tan Sang are best placed to take over as general secretary. If Dung does not get the job, he is likely to remain prime minister. Both are southerners and were party secretaries in Ho Chi Minh City. Neither man is seen as a champion of political reform in the manner of late prime minister Vo Van Kiet. The dark horse candidate is To Huy Rua, a hardliner who runs the ideology and education commission.
A secretariat led by Truong Tan Sang looks after day-to-day policy implementation. The central military commission, which is composed of select politburo members and additional military leaders, determines military policy. The national assembly is the highest representative body of the people and the only organization with legislative powers. Once seen as little more than a rubber stamp, the assembly has become more assertive in exercising its authority over legislation. However, it remains subject to the party and more than 90 percent of the deputies are party members.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers