New French Prime Minister Michel Barnier has yet to appoint a government, still less lay out its agenda. However, three-quarters of voters already believe that he would soon be on his way out, despite French President Emmanuel Macron’s hope that the former EU Brexit negotiator can safeguard his legacy after multiple misjudgments.
Barnier himself once described the president’s leadership as “solitary and arrogant.” That helps to explain the disastrous snap election. It saw support surge for National Rally leader Marine Le Pen’s far right in the first round, before the withdrawal of candidates by a republican front and tactical voting rode to the rescue in the second. The outcome was a legislature essentially split into three blocs — left, center and far right — in a country without a recent history of coalition building.
Macron worsened matters by rejecting the left-wing New Popular Front prime ministerial candidate Lucie Castets, which startled everyone by coming first in July. The left’s bickering and unwillingness to compromise has not helped itself. It was also true that such a government had a minimal chance of survival. However, the president should have allowed matters to take their course. Instead, he picked a prime minister whose fourth-placed The Republicans party holds only 47 of 577 seats and which did not sacrifice candidates to see off Le Pen’s National Rally, as the left and center did.
Barnier may be a dealmaker, but the truth is that he has been chosen as much for who he is not as who he is. Macron has been casting around for a right-leaning candidate who not only has a fighting chance of avoiding outright rejection by 289 MPs, but who is also willing to protect his legacy, especially his unpopular rise in the pension age. While for most of his career Barnier has been regarded as on the center-right, he voted against the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1981 and took a grim, hardline swing during an unsuccessful bid to be the right’s presidential candidate in 2021. That included a proposed moratorium on all immigration — including family reunions — from outside the EU. Speaking after his appointment, he said that “there still is a feeling that our borders are sieves.”
Le Pen said that he shares her party’s views on immigration. Barnier enjoys his position thanks to the far right’s acquiescence; he is captive to its caprice. That is hardly cause for celebration. Nor is it a long-term solution, since Le Pen needs him to fail.
Barnier’s first, immense challenge would be to draw up a budget next month and push it through. His experience and political skills might help his government win some leeway from Brussels over its spending plans, reassuring the EU that France is slashing its debt. However, it would be harder to make the politics and economics add up at home.
If the public is proved right about Barnier’s political lifespan, Macron would soon need to find a replacement. However, each time he rolls the dice, the odds get worse. Appointing a representative of the “old world” of politics — which he once vowed to sweep away — hardly meets the public demand for change. Turnout surged in this summer’s election to the highest level since 1981, but the resulting political maneuvering is increasing disenchantment with the democratic process. July’s second-round result, which brought such relief, is now being squandered.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS