In South Korea, political infighting led on Monday to a vote of no-confidence in Unification Minister Lim Dong-won, one of President Kim Dae-jung's confidantes and the resignation of the entire Cabinet the following day. Kim's coalition partner, the United Lib-eral Democrats (ULD), turned the tables on him, causing four lawmakers to leave the party, thereby reducing the ULD to less than 20 parliamentary seats and disqualifying it from striking deals in parliament.
This political tempest has revealed at least two problems. The first is whether or not the Kim government's "sunshine" policy of pursuing contacts with North Korea will survive. The second is whether Kim Dae-jung will continue to run his minority government, now that he has formally split with ULD chief Kim Jung-pil -- or will he be a lame duck, with more political chaos forecasted for the next year or two?
The political uproar in South Korea is more than a struggle between the ruling and opposition parties; it is an overture to next year's presidential election. The opposition parties voted against the "sunshine" policy because in the 15 months since the North-South summit the policy has created a confusion in national identity nationwide. The policy also eroded trust between the ruling and opposition parties as a dispute continued to flare over whether Seoul should be harder or softer toward Pyongyang. The Seoul government has been trying a balancing act, teetering between the rising tide of nationalism within South Korea and the wider international environment.
President Kim has also been guilty of arrogance, governing with an authoritarian, paternalistic style -- despite his government's minority status -- and ignoring public opinion. His political style goes against today's democratic trends -- as evidenced by his efforts to seek personal credit by holding a summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-il at all costs, ignoring the fact that the international environment was not yet mature enough for such a meeting.
In willfully pursuing his "sunshine" policy, Kim's administration has ignored the international situation and the US' strategic arrangements in the western Pacific. Kim's repeated goodwill gestures toward Pyongyang have proven to be of limited benefit. Because the situation in the Korean Peninsula has a direct bearing on all of East Asia, Seoul's neighbors are keeping a close watch. At the same time, developments in South Korea can serve as a lesson for the Chen Shui-bian (
One can draw a parallel between the "sunshine" policy and the decision made at the recent Economic Development Advisory Conference to relax the "no haste, be patient" policy against China. The failure of Kim's policy sends a strong warning to Taiwan as it prepares to relax its controls toward China. One has to question how a democratic civil society -- where the middle class makes up a majority of the population -- can unconditionally appease and open itself up to an isolationist one-party communist society?
Certainly, the situation across the Taiwan Strait is not exactly the same as that on the Korean Penin-sula. However, the interaction between Seoul and Pyongyang can serve as a mirror for the two sides of the Strait. If the "sunshine" policy becomes a lame duck like Kim Dae-jung himself, then the people of Taiwan should start thinking seriously about whether they can continue to open up unconditionally toward a still hostile China.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS