The US presidential election campaign has entered the final stages. After the Democratic and Republican parties held their conventions, the candidates have now entered the debate stage. Although different opinion polls have indicated different levels of support for the incumbent president and vice president, the overall picture seems to be that senators John Kerry and John Edwards have a small lead over President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Bush is focusing on national security, while Kerry doesn't seem to have any clear opinions and seems satisfied with attacking Bush over the Iraq war and economic policy. Maybe the final election outcome will be similar to what happened in Taiwan's latest presidential election, where the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) seemed to have the lead, but in the end lost -- albeit by the smallest of margins.
Because the US economy is in the middle of an upturn, Kerry's attacks on Bush's economic policy will not be very effective, and the decisive battle will probably be fought over the Iraq war. Kerry is afraid of rejecting the war on terror and therefore aims his main attack at Bush's war in Iraq. But that doesn't mean that Bush can be complacent about his stand on the war on terror.
There have been no terrorist bombings in the US lately. But if there were to be a major terrorist attack in the US before the election -- something similar to the train bombing in Madrid -- there could be a change in public opinion, causing the incumbent government to lose. But terrorists cannot rely on wishful thinking. Maybe Americans will react differently to the Spanish, perhaps becoming more fervently nationalistic and giving Bush even stronger support, just as happened after Sept. 11.
This presidential election may thus be decided by an assessment of the war in Iraq. Although Bush in the beginning seemed to be winning the war, the handover of government power to the Iraqis wasn't smooth, to say the least. This led to problems in the postwar occupation, such as the US' inability to put a quick stop to guerilla-style terrorist activities, and an increasing death toll. This is Bush's biggest weakness in this election.
A similar political and military approach was attempted by the Japanese during their occupation of China, and by Chiang Kai-shek (
It is still too early to make a final assessment of the war in Iraq. People said 50 years ago that US intervention in the Korean War was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place, so Americans have done their best to forget that war. But looking back at that war today, we have to wonder how much there would be left of the free world had the Americans not intervened. At the least, the "Asian tigers" probably would not have come into existence. We must also wonder whether the North Korean nuclear issue would now be limited to North Korea only, and whether Japan might not also have become "red."
Now, although Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, we have seen Libya's Muammar Qaddafi abandon his terrorist policies. Although North Korea is continuing to create problems, China no longer dares support it openly and is now forced to pretend to be on the same side as the US and apply pressure on North Korea in the six-nation talks.
Both China and Taiwan are paying close attention to the US presidential election. Although the Chinese government outwardly remains neutral, public opinion is clearly on Kerry's side because his cross-strait policy does not mention the Taiwan Relations Act that so displeases China, and because once, in a slip of the tongue, he supported a solution of the Taiwan issue within China's "one country, two systems" framework. China therefore has better expectations of Kerry.
Two months ago, there was some information saying that Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Although Taiwan remains neutral, there must be questions concerning Kerry's remarks. Presidential advisor Koo Kuan-min's (辜寬敏) recent ads in the New York Times and the Washington Post requesting that the US review its "one China" policy were quickly rejected by the US government in a clear attempt to avoid having external factors affect the presidential election campaign. The "one China" policy issue, however, is not only an issue when deciding whom to vote for -- it is also an issue that the next US president should resolve.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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