Many kinds of animals are used to illustrate the lessons of politics and statecraft: Here I will mention only two, the lion and the fox.
Several familiar historical analogies are used and reused to make political points; here I will use one that is probably unfamiliar to most readers and let them draw from it what they will: the tragedy of Daniel O'Connell, the Liberator.
Almost two centuries ago, Daniel O'Connell was the lion of the Irish Catholics' movement for freedom and representation in the British parliament. At the time, the only Irish who could be elected to parliament were Protestants. Both the Protestants (oranges) and Catholics (greens) were Gaelic and often considered themselves Irish, but the former had come from Scotland at the behest of the British Crown. Thus, they were considered loyal to England. In fact, these Orangemen, as a rule, were more loyal supporters of "England's cruel red" than the Gaels who remained under the blue flag of Scotland.
Though the Orangemen were very much in the minority, they had the notion that they had some inalienable right to rule over the Irish who had been in Ireland for centuries. Ireland was considered a historical and inseparable part of the British Empire.
Lawyer Daniel O'Connell was an uncompromising agitator for Irish Catholic rights. Undeterred by persecution, he and his followers eventually forced parliament to pass the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. O'Connell was the first Irish Catholic to serve in parliament. By this time, he and his followers had gained recognition of many other rights for Irish Catholics.
Once O'Connell entered parliament, however, he ran with the foxes. To use another metaphor, he became a horse trader. Through a series of compromises, he traded away some rights in order to gain others. It's a rare politician who can be both a lion and a fox (Lee Teng-hui [李登輝] comes to mind).
A political movement is most effective when the leader is a lion who is advised by foxes. A fox in a position of leadership almost always outfoxes himself. Daniel O'Connell learned that lesson the hard way; he had lost the Catholics more rights than he had gained for them.
President Chen Sui-bian's (陳水扁) biggest mistake was to engage in a kind of one-sided compromise known as back-burning: endorsing popular parts of onerous measures in order to take some of the fuel from those measures as a whole. He risked burning down the forest he was trying to save. In the process, he lost allies and emboldened enemies.
According to one biographer, Daniel O'Connell resigned from parliament and spent the rest of his life a bitter, broken man with little following. It was another century before the Emerald Isle gained its rightful place among the world's nations.
Jerry Mills
Shilin
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS