The past few months have seen an unprecedented crisis unfold across most continents. The coronavirus pandemic and the disease it causes, COVID-19, have infected nearly 1.6 million people and led to more than 100,000 deaths. These numbers are expected to rise.
Perhaps just as shocking as the virus and the social and economic destruction it has brought with it is the lack of leadership from China and the US and their mishandling of the situation.
Maybe even more surprising is the responsibility and adeptness shown by middle powers in Asia, such as Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore.
China, led by the Chinese Communist Party, originally silenced journalists and doctors who tried to inform the world of the virus, first reported in Wuhan.
After weeks of denying the seriousness and spread of the virus, as well as spinning shifting narratives, Beijing locked down hundreds of millions of citizens, including entire cities. Information related to the public made many skeptical about the validity of the number of reported cases and casualties.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) disappeared for 12 days, leaving many to wonder what kind of signal this sent.
Under the leadership of US President Donald Trump, the US has not fared any better and has arguably failed much worse. With a near three-month head start, the Trump administration seems to have pre-emptively acted on very little.
Now, with more cases than anywhere else, and with dire death rates in cities such as New York and New Orleans, the US seems to be inundated in its own mismanagement.
Over the past few weeks, Trump has attempted to monopolize a potential virus cure, lied to the public by saying “anybody that needs a test gets a test” and stirred up anti-Chinese rhetoric endangering Asian-Americans.
This amalgamation of selfishness, deceitfulness and hatred is not what the country, nor the world, needs in a time of panic.
While these superpowers have blundered their responses to the crisis, Asian middle powers have stepped up by showcasing swift government responses, transparency and accountability.
Contrary to China’s lack of openness, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) mandated that Taiwanese media relay information related to the coronavirus hourly for near-constant updates. Taiwan also implemented initiatives the day the virus was reported to the WHO, of which it is not a member.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s government acted swiftly after an initially slow start; mass testing, social distancing and listening to medical experts all helped flatten the curve throughout the country.
Singapore kept infected patients in hospitals over concerns of a second wave and has contact tracing teams investigating potential transmissions.
That Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore have different forms of governments proves that the comparison of whether a democratic or authoritarian regime works best in times of duress is moot.
Rather, what theses nations have proven is that middle powers rose to the occasion when larger ones did not. With transparent and competent leadership nationally, regionally and globally, the ascendancy of these nations offers much to hypothesize on what the world order would look like after the pandemic has ended.
Will the squandered leadership by China and the US be forgiven? While it is certain the globe would still need these behemoths to play a pivotal role in geopolitics, perhaps some of the social, political and economic power the bipolar world once saw would diminish, leaving a vacuum for middle powers to fill.
Will Doran is an independent researcher who lives in Jakarta. He is a graduate of the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS