When US Senator Edward Kennedy warned this week that the crisis in Iraq may be turning into "George Bush's Vietnam" he sent a shudder down the spines of Americans for whom a defeat and 55,000 US deaths remain a national trauma.
As British Prime Minister Tony Blair heads for New York and Washington this week -- amid stern declarations of unflinching solidarity with US President George W. Bush in Iraq -- a similar challenge faces him.
So far Blair has been lucky in the timing of the latest surge of fighting. Now on holiday, the prime minister might have been expected to speak out as the conflict flared inside Iraq. But parliament is in recess until next Monday, giving him breathing space to assess the position and reshape policy.
On Friday that opportunity began to look like a problem. As reports of more hostage-taking and fighting came in from Iraq, Blair was on the first day of his trip to the British territory of Bermuda. His departure -- leaving UK Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott in charge -- came after a week in which ministers have been notably absent from the airwaves.
That same day, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw appeared on BBC Radio 4's The World At One to admit that the coalition faced the "most serious" threat since the end of the war. Some detected a new, more critical tone towards the US military's approach to the insurgency. Ceasefires, not confrontation, are the way to moveforward, he seemed to be saying.
Straw's appearance came amid increased concern in Downing Street that the government's position was being damaged by its apparent silence as critics of the war took to the airwaves. The government is anxious to avoid the impression that it is running scared.
Yet the picture for Blair is more complex. In Britain -- unlike the US where the election campaign is under way -- Iraq has not become a dividing point between the main parties. The latest critical foray on the airwaves last Thursday of former UK foreign secretary Robin Cook, who resigned over the decision to go to war, is the worst No. 10 has endured so far. There is no equivalent of John Kerry, the Democrats' candidate for president, after Blair's job.
Like the ardently Bushite former Tories leader Iain Duncan Smith, opposition Conservative leader Michael Howard is pro-US and believes the overthrow of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was justified and will be vindicated. He cannot attack Blair too much without being called opportunistic and has pulled his punches.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy's position is more similar to that of Kerry, albeit without his Vietnam vet's chestful of medals. But Kennedy must tread a narrow line between legitimate scrutiny of government mistakes and charges of ignorance or disloyalty. He too sounds muted.
Labour's Donald Anderson, chairman of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, just back from Washington, confirms that Blair's stock remains very high in the US capital and that doors open to British members of parliament as a result; less so for what are seen as the crypto-pacifists in coalitions across what is dismissed as "old Europe."
But the price in terms of domestic popularity and trust is high and may be getting higher. It is no longer impossible to imagine that Bush will lose the presidency on Nov. 2 and Blair be forced to stand aside for his heir apparent before Britain's own election.
Little wonder that Downing Street has not organized a press plane to follow Blair to see UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the UN on Thursday night and on to the White House the next day. The two leaders talk regularly by phone -- as they did last Wednesday -- but need private "face time" occasionally.
This is not a "crisis" summit, aides stress. The trip was set for spring or early summer, not too close to the Democratic and Republican conventions in July and September. Wisely or not, Bush wants his jamboree close to Sept. 11.
It's understandable that Blair does not want too much made of his trip. Jose Maria Aznar's defeat in Spain is not an encouraging omen. British voters have a chance to kick Labour in local and European elections on June 10.
Nor can Bush's closest Iraq ally be seen to be other than strictly neutral in the US campaign, whatever the private views on the best result for Blair which commentators -- on little or no evidence -- ascribe to him. As he showed in 2000, Blair is nimble-footed enough to adapt to either outcome; as ever, London will seek to remain the EU-US bridge.
But what will his friend Tony feel able to say to Bush? Aides stress the on-message determination not to be forced out of Iraq and to stick to the June 30 deadline for the handover of power.
It is likely that Blair will gently seek to impress Britain's hard-won experience at counter-insurgency and low-intensity urban warfare, hoping to render the US approach more subtle and more acceptable -- in Iraq and beyond.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS