With North Korea again raising the specter of war in the Korean Peninsula, Afghanistan slipping out of control, continued unrest in Pakistan, a defiant Iran and a deepening global financial crisis, it was not surprising that US President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), would strike an amiable tone during their first telephone conversation late last week.
During their conversation, Obama may also have gone out of his way to repair whatever damage his earlier comments about Beijing manipulating its currency may have caused to Sino-American ties.
After all, if any of the challenges listed above — to which we might add counterterrorism and climate change — are to be resolved, a weakened US will need the help of the rising Asian giant. Aside from the economy, Afghanistan — a neighbor of China — stands out as a principal area where the US may need help, largely as a result of the impact of the global financial crisis on contributing NATO countries, many of which are nearing the end of their commitments to Afghanistan. Despite Beijing’s reservations about intervening in the internal affairs of states, Washington could very well call upon it to lend an unofficial hand.
Hu, meanwhile, must have been at his charming best during the conversation, as Obama’s first week in office showed signs — with, among others, the announced closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and an end to questionable interrogation techniques by the CIA — that human rights could be at the forefront of his administration’s policies. Beijing may also have been uncomfortable with US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who last week accused the administration of former US president George W. Bush of having placed too much emphasis on the economic sphere when dealing with Beijing, a hint that the new White House could very well be responsive to calls by Congress and rights organizations that Washington apply more pressure on China in the realm of human rights.
At this juncture, it is hard to tell which direction Obama will choose when it comes to China. It would not be the first time, however, for a new administration, fresh with revolutionary zeal, to see its ideals flounder on the shores of economic and geopolitical realities, which in today’s circumstances is, sadly, the likelier scenario. The list of challenges is simply too long for an administration facing serious unemployment at home and a series of commitments abroad to risk alienating an important ally like China.
Indeed, Pyongyang, another regime that bristles whenever US presidents raise the human rights issue, may have timed its latest flare-up in the Korean Peninsula to add to the external pressures on Obama. For whether Obama likes it or not, the Bush administration made Beijing an indispensable ally in the six-party talks on North Korea, and he will have no choice but to rely on China if all-out war is to be avoided between the two Koreas.
Hu — and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, for that matter — are fully aware of Obama’s dependence and will strategically apply the pressure whenever it suits their needs.
The coming year will be a true test of leadership for Obama. But one thing is certain: If maintaining smooth relations with China helps repair the ailing US economy, create much-needed jobs at home and alleviate the US’ heavy burdens abroad, chances are that relations between Hu and Obama will be no bumpier than they were between Hu and Bush.
Human rights? Former US president Bill Clinton’s administration put it best — it’s the economy, stupid.
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