The US is now on the brink of war with Osama bin Laden and his protector, Afghanistan. While the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington DC were crimes against humanity, they were, above all, acts of war directed against the US. The US response, as expected, was the announcement of a systematic and comprehensive war against all forms of international terrorism. The result of this global war on terrorism remains uncertain. Nevertheless, a valuable lesson can be learned from the Bush administration's style of crisis management.
In his first eight months of presidency, President Bush has experienced several foreign crises including the unexpected bombing of Iraqi targets for crossing over restricted naval areas -- and the mid-air collision between an American surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter jet. None of them, however, was nearly as astonishing as the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Let's review the process of Bush's handling of a crisis which was both unprecedented as well as a turning point in history.
When Bush was first told that the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City were hit by two suicide planes hijacked by terrorists, he was advised by Vice President Dick Cheny and the secret service to stay away from the capital. He also did not immediately inform congressional leaders of his whereabouts, again for security reasons. Major TV anchors repeatedly asked the question: Where is our President?
When Bush gave his first national speech on the tragedy, he looked shattered, untested and inexperienced. Despite his initial uneasy response, President Bush's handling of the crisis afterwards has been praised and respected. To avoid the possible return of complacency, Bush and his national security team have acted quickly to ensure that specific measures were taken quickly to mobilize the nation to meet the threat of terrorism and a widely-feared chemical war.
Bush quickly defined the terrorist act as "war against the nation" and asked Congress for a declaration of war against any international group and/or state that had participated in the attack. This made America's resolve clear, and eliminated any confusion about the methods needed to solve the problem.
Bush also successfully took on a new image of "father of the nation" by publicly mourning the victims of the incident. At the same time he showed great determination to target evil and to fight the enemy.
Bush and his team understood that the American people wanted to tackle the problem and not merely express their outrage or anger through symbolic gestures. The US needs to root out the networks that support terrorists, and not just retaliate against individuals. This means finding hidden enemies who are waging war against them and completely destroying them, their supporters and the infrastructure that enabled them to attack.
It also means holding accountable the states that harbored or supported these terrorists in any way. If a regime is found to have harbored or supported these terrorists, it should be the goal of US policy to remove that regime from power by any means necessary. The means to be used should be decided by the president and the secretary of defense in consultation with Congress. However, as much leeway as possible must be given to the military commanders in deciding the exact methods to be used.
As for other states that may have indirectly supported the terrorists, the US should use whatever means are necessary to punish them or to force a change in their policies. The over-90 percent approval-rate for Bush showed how solidly the public are behind their national leader.
Bush deserved the credit for successfully getting bi-partisan and congressional support for military action. Congress was able to give Bush whatever he asked for by way of funding for military and security operations, intelligence acquisition and the building-up of the armed forces in order to meet the palpable threats that have for too long been discounted -- and in some cases even ignored. This is the key to the administration's possible future success in the fight against terrorism. National unity is essential when it comes to a national crisis like this.
Once the US has rooted out the terrorists who are behind this tragedy, a more profound review of American foreign policy will be needed. The Bush administration has also taken into consideration a comprehensive homeland defense policy that defends the American homeland not merely against terrorist attacks such as the one that occurred on Sept.11, but against other and some previously unheard-of ones, for example: attacks on the computer infrastructure, on the financial systems and on the communications, transportation, water and fuel supply networks.
To sum up, Bush's crisis management has demonstrated that in times of trouble, a system of free markets and democracy makes it easier to care for each other and to generate domestic consensus.
In the face of a giant enemy from across the Taiwan Strait, what Taiwan can learn from the American experience is how to handle a national crisis in accordance with the constitution, while at the same time, generating a national consensus on defending the nation. Judging by how divided the ruling and opposition parties were in their dealings with the typhoon relief work, there is still a long way to go for Taiwan.
Liu Kuan is a political commentator based in Taipei.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS