At 12pm on Jan. 20, the US will have experienced 16 years of contentious, divisive and mediocre government. This bleak period will have been evenly split, to the day and hour, between Democrats led by former US president Bill Clinton and Republicans by US President George W. Bush.
That dismal record will test president-elect Barack Obama, who takes office that day, as much or more than the economic recession, the issues of immigration, energy, education and healthcare; the bog of Iraq and Afghanistan; the latest flare-up between Israelis and Palestinians and a litany of difficulties that almost any schoolboy could recite.
Moreover, the new president’s task will be hard because only 33 percent of eligible voters in the US cast their ballots for him. The rest either didn’t vote, or voted for Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican candidate, or voted for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr or candidates from other parties. Obama cannot claim a mandate to ram through his proposals.
Nevertheless, all Americans, even those who didn’t vote for him, should wish Obama well and hope that his presidency is successful, if for no other reason than the US cannot afford another four or eight years of discordant, second-rate government.
The same wish should be true for allies and friends of the US. Despite the US’ troubles, the constructive application of US power is still vital to the well-being of nations from the UK to South Africa to Japan. Further, potential adversaries such as China should hope that Obama can steer a course that serves the US’ interests as well as preclude armed conflict.
It won’t be easy. Witness the alleged corrupt schemes of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Obama. The governor has been charged with conspiracy and bribery and driven the already turbulent politics of Chicago to a new low as he has defied widespread calls for his resignation, including from Obama.
Or the bitter parting shot from Bob Herbert, a liberal columnist for the New York Times who wrote last week: “I don’t think he [President Bush] should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country.”
In sharp contrast, there are signs that civility might return to US public life. From all reports, Bush has gone out of his way to have officials of his administration brief those of the new administration to help them get started. For his part, Obama has been careful not to presume on Bush’s responsibilities and prerogatives as president. More than once he has said the US can have only one president at a time.
Similarly, Bill Kristol, a conservative with unquestioned credentials, said in another column in the New York Times: “I look forward to Obama’s inauguration with a surprising degree of hope and good cheer.”
Noting that Obama will be sworn in with President Abraham Lincoln’s Bible, Kristol said: “Obama could do a lot worse than study Lincoln and learn from him.”
In Asia, the incoming administration will be confronted immediately with a looming crisis between India and Pakistan caused by the attack in late November on Mumbai, the financial center of India, presumably by Pakistani terrorists.
A conflict between India and Pakistan would jeopardize US military operations in Afghanistan. A main supply route from the Pakistani port of Karachi through the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan has already been cut either by Taliban militants or Pakistani troops pursuing the terrorists.
In a larger context, several US administrations have tried to treat India and Pakistan in an even-handed manner but have not acquired enough influence to restrain either. A complication is the posture of China, long an ally of Pakistan and a rival with India, and the fact that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.
On his Web site, www.change.gov, Obama does not mention India and says only that Pakistan will be held “accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan.”
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
For three years and three months, Taiwan’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has remained stalled. On Nov. 29, members meeting in Vancouver agreed to establish a working group for Costa Rica’s entry — the fifth applicant in line — but not for Taiwan. As Taiwan’s prospects for CPTPP membership fade due to “politically sensitive issues,” what strategy should it adopt to overcome this politically motivated economic exclusion? The situation is not entirely dim; these challenges offer an opportunity to reimagine the export-driven country’s international trade strategy. Following the US’ withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Two major Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-People’s Liberation Army (PLA) power demonstrations in November 2024 highlight the urgency for Taiwan to pursue a military buildup and deterrence agenda that can take back control of its destiny. First, the CCP-PLA’s planned future for Taiwan of war, bloody suppression, and use as a base for regional aggression was foreshadowed by the 9th and largest PLA-Russia Joint Bomber Exercise of Nov. 29 and 30. It was double that of previous bomber exercises, with both days featuring combined combat strike groups of PLA Air Force and Russian bombers escorted by PLAAF and Russian fighters, airborne early warning
Since the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation has taken Taiwanese students to visit China and invited Chinese students to Taiwan. Ma calls those activities “cross-strait exchanges,” yet the trips completely avoid topics prohibited by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), such as democracy, freedom and human rights — all of which are universal values. During the foundation’s most recent Chinese student tour group, a Fudan University student used terms such as “China, Taipei” and “the motherland” when discussing Taiwan’s recent baseball victory. The group’s visit to Zhongshan Girls’ High School also received prominent coverage in
India and China have taken a significant step toward disengagement of their military troops after reaching an agreement on the long-standing disputes in the Galwan Valley. For government officials and policy experts, this move is welcome, signaling the potential resolution of the enduring border issues between the two countries. However, it is crucial to consider the potential impact of this disengagement on India’s relationship with Taiwan. Over the past few years, there have been important developments in India-Taiwan relations, including exchanges between heads of state soon after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s third electoral victory. This raises the pressing question:
RSS