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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS