Whether US President George W. Bush or Senator John Kerry wins the White House next Tuesday, the next president faces an overflowing in-tray of international problems.
America's global power has never been greater. But never, since the Sept. 11 catastrophe, has the US' global leadership been under such sustained challenge. Rarely have issues of foreign policy had such a direct, existential bearing on America's sense of itself and its security. Rarely has what the US president decides mattered so much to so many.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
The most immediate worry is the security situation in Iraq. As the US tries to steer the country to elections in January, the predicted surge in violence may be compounded by a Sunni Muslim poll boycott. The insurgent redoubt of Falluja is again the likely, lethal flashpoint.
Iran's nuclear ambitions are moving up the agenda. On Nov. 25, the International Atomic Energy Agency must decide whether to report Iran to the UN Security Council. If it does so, punitive sanctions could follow. If the UN fails to agree, the White House will come under pressure, not least from Israel, to consider unilateral measures including possible military action.
The next president will also quickly face demands, from British Prime Minister Tony Blair among others, to launch a new drive to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict -- which many European and Arab governments view as a precondition for winning the "war on terror."
Other problems in need of action include the humanitarian crisis in Sudan that the US Congress has termed genocide but which is proving resistant to international remedies.
Some European diplomats fear a second Bush term could open the way for a sweeping expansion of Republican neo-conservative policies.
This would only exacerbate existing divisions over issues such as the Kyoto climate change treaty, global trade and development, and international law.
Victory for Kerry would entail different kinds of uncertainty. A sort of interregnum would ensue until his inauguration next January. Once in office, a new Democratic administration would take months to settle in -- confronted in all probability by a hostile Republican-controlled Congress.
Whoever wins, these are some of the principal issues facing the next president:
ANTI-AMERICANISM
The Bush presidency has brought a surge in anti-American sentiment, notably in the Arab, Muslim and European spheres. This phenomenon is undermining US influence and effectiveness across the board, making it difficult to persuade others to follow America's lead.
For the first time, the US is seen by majorities in many countries, especially by younger Muslims, as a potential enemy rather than a friend.
Such conclusions are borne out by a clutch of international opinion surveys and by an official worldwide study undertaken last year by a former US ambassador, Edward Djerejian. He found the US was losing the battle for hearts and minds. Since then, the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib abuse scandals have further damaged America's standing abroad.
TERRORISM
While the next president will be under intense pressure to win the "war on terror," it remains unclear exactly who or where the enemy is -- or how it can best be defeated.
Despite the elimination of some leading al-Qaeda figures, Osama bin Laden remains at large. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda's cause has devolved to loose-knit, copycat groups in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Chechnya and Pakistan. The Iraq insurgency has proved both magnet and recruiting sergeant for Islamist extremists.
Bush has repeatedly claimed to have al-Qaeda and its affiliates on the run. But a report this month by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London estimated that al-Qaeda can potentially draw on 18,000 operatives in 60 countries. Al-Qaeda, it said, had been "galvanized" by the Iraq war.
Unless remedial action is taken, the "war on terror" will continue to be destabilizing in geopolitical terms. It has been used by states such as Israel, Russia and China to justify harsher treatment of nationalists and separatists. It has drawn the US into problematic alliances with undemocratic regimes in central Asia. And it has led to divisive erosion of civil liberties abroad and in the US
PROLIFERATION
Bush and Kerry agree that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the single most serious threat to international security. While the next president's focus will be on Iran and North Korea, a bigger fear is that non-state actors such as al-Qaeda will obtain weapons of mass destruction (WMD). North Korea claims already to have nuclear weapons.
Multilateral negotiations to induce it to disarm have stalled. Kerry says he will talk directly to Pyongyang, something Bush refuses to do.
Syria is another concern, as is a region-wide Middle East WMD arms race should Iran obtain the bomb. Unsecured WMD-related stockpiles in the former Soviet Union and smuggling rings like that uncovered in Pakistan are also a big worry vis a vis future terrorist capabilities.
All these problems are compounded by the weakness of international regulation, inspection and verification regimes and by the "double standards" of existing nuclear powers which refuse to renounce their weapons.
CONFLICT ZONES
The US urgently needs more international military and UN civilian support in Iraq. Washington will ask NATO and Muslim countries to contribute additional troops at a conference in Egypt next month. Severe US military over-stretch lies behind the recent, controversial request for British redeployments in Iraq. Overall, meeting the US' myriad global military commitments is becoming increasingly expensive and problematic in terms of personnel, hence the speculation about a post-election draft.
The US remains heavily committed in Afghanistan, with 20,000 troops still fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. There are also growing concerns about a reviving instability in the Balkans, particularly in Kosovo where final-status talks are due to begin next year.
Israel-Palestine and Iraq apart, the Middle East as a whole remains a critical national security concern for any US president, given America's chronic dependence on oil. Bilateral post-Sept. 11 relations with Saudi Arabia are especially fraught.
OLD RIVALS
China's rapid economic growth is creating political and geo-strategic challenges for America which the next president will be forced to address.
Bilateral trade is booming. The Olympics are coming to Beijing. But China remains an undemocratic Communist state with a poor human rights record. President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) is an unknown quantity. Yet the US needs China's good offices if, for example, the North Korean stand-off is to be ended.
Russia is another potential problem, despite relatively greater stability under President Vladimir Putin. Moscow's reaction to the Beslan school tragedy has revived questions about Putin's authoritarianism -- which also affects countries in the "near abroad" like Ukraine and Georgia.
Like China, Russia is developing new long-range missiles in response to Bush's "son of Star Wars" ballistic missile defense project, prompting fears of a new arms race.
MULTILATERALISM
US relations with leading EU countries, especially France, are in need of repair. But trade and other disputes with the EU will certainly figure on the next president's agenda.
More fundamentally challenging is the EU's gradual emergence as a global political player. Its development of a collective military capability, potentially undermining NATO, is a gauntlet that the White House may be obliged to pick up. This in turn relates to knotty questions about the legitimacy of intervention and "just war" concepts.
Radically different European attitudes to the UN and upholding international law through institutions such as the world court and the International Criminal Court are key areas of contention. UN reform is another pressing issue.
Underlying all these concerns is the European insistence on multilateral approaches to common problems, in contrast to Bush-era unilateralism. For the next president, perhaps the most difficult challenge will be to decide if and when the US goes it alone. If Bush has proved anything, it is that even the US cannot do it all.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS