Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

In Taiwan’s election, voters refused to give in to Beijing’s relentless pressure

Published

6 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By J. Michael Cole

Beijing will no doubt regard the results of Saturday’s elections as a further affront to its nationalistic pride.

Amid unprecedented attention from the international community and rising tensions in the Taiwan Strait, the people of Taiwan headed to the polls on Saturday to elect a new president and legislature. After months of intense campaigning and intimidation by China, Taiwanese voters elected to give the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) a third four-year term – the first time in the island nation’s democratic history that a party has remained in power for more than two consecutive terms.

Despite Beijing’s warning that a vote for the DPP candidate, Lai Ching-te, constituted a vote for “war,” the Taiwanese electorate chose continuity, with Mr. Lai vowing to continue the policies of President Tsai Ing-wen, who successfully navigated a difficult geopolitical environment over the past eight years. (Ms. Tsai will step down on May 20 after reaching her two-term limit.)

Wary of the Taiwan-centric DPP, Beijing has been relentless in its attempts to coerce Taiwan, both militarily and economically, and to isolate it from the international community while using various incentives to foster support for unification with the People’s Republic of China. Those efforts have been largely unsuccessful, and eight years on, Taiwan is arguably much more connected with the international community than it was under more Beijing-friendly governments.

Beijing will no doubt regard the results of Saturday’s elections as a further affront to its nationalistic pride, and we can therefore expect an intensification of its punitive measures at the economic and diplomatic level, as well as an intensification of its already highly destabilizing military activity around Taiwan. In response, the Lai administration will continue to strive to diversify its export destinations to further reduce its economic dependence in China, and, as one of the most vibrant democracies in the region, will remain an important partner to the U.S.-led community of democracies as it pushes back against resurgent authoritarianism. Under Ms. Tsai, Taiwan has played an important role as an example and promoter of liberal democracy, both within the region and abroad. Its government and vibrant civil society have expanded their footprint abroad, often helping other democracies, such as Canada, learn how to better balance their relationship with China so that trade and engagement does not come at the cost of corroded values and institutions.

While many domestic factors also weighed into who the Taiwanese decided to vote for in Saturday’s election, in which the DPP also lost its majority of seats in the Legislative Yuan, their vote for Mr. Lai signalled a desire for Taiwan to continue to play a larger role on the international stage. While potentially reducing tensions in the Taiwan Strait for some time, a victory by his two opponents would nevertheless have come at the cost of retrenchment on the international stage and greater focus on Taiwan’s relations with – and concessions to – China.

Still, despite ongoing efforts to modernize its military and develop a defence posture that is better suited to meet the challenge posed by the Chinese military, Taiwan’s ability to deter an invasion by the much more powerful People’s Liberation Army remains contingent on a U.S. commitment to its defence, as well as pressure from other countries making it clear to Beijing that any attempt to annex Taiwan by force and against the wishes of its 23.5 million people would come at an unacceptable cost.

Potential distractions caused by the ongoing war in Ukraine, the risks of a regional conflagration in the Middle East, an unpredictable North Korea and political instability in the U.S. could undermine American efforts to assist Taiwan and therefore embolden Beijing. The DPP’s loss of its majority in parliament could also complicate the new administration’s ability to secure the budgets it needs to fund defence modernization and foreign policy initiatives, which Beijing will no doubt seek to exploit.

There is every reason to believe that a Lai administration will build upon and continue to expand the course set by his predecessor. In the last eight years, Taiwan shone on the international stage, and consolidated its place as both a bastion of liberal-democratic values and an economic powerhouse whose technological prowess in fields such as semiconductors have positioned the country as an indispensable component of the global supply chain. And yet, this success story continues to be threatened by an authoritarian neighbour that rejects the reality that, whoever they vote for, the people of Taiwan categorically refuse to be ruled by Beijing. They cherish the freedom, democracy and way of life they have built over decades of arduous work. And they want their rightful place on the international stage.

J. Michael Cole is a Taipei-based senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in Ottawa and a senior adviser on countering foreign authoritarian influence with the International Republican Institute. He is also a former analyst with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

armed forces

Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Morgan Murphy

With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.

It is a start.

But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.

Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.

The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.

In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.

Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.

What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics

The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.

Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”

Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.

How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”

Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.

Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Former FBI Asst Director Warns Terrorists Are ‘Well Embedded’ In US, Says Alert Should Be ‘Higher’

Published on

Chris Swecker on “Anderson Cooper 360” discussing terror threat

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker warned Friday on CNN that terrorists are “well embedded” within the United States, stating the threat level should be “higher” following an attack in Germany.

A 50-year-old Saudi doctor allegedly drove his car into a crowded Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany on Friday leaving at least two people dead and nearly 70 injured so far. On “Anderson Cooper 360,” Swecker was asked if he believes there is a potential “threat” to the U.S. as concerns have risen since the “fall of Afghanistan.” 

“I think so,” Swecker said. “I mean, we’ve heard FBI Director Chris Wray talk about this in conjunction with the relative ease of getting across the southern border. And, you know, there’s no question that terrorists have come across that border, whether they’re lone terrorists or terrorist cells. And they’re well embedded inside this country.”

WATCH:

“I’ve worked terrorist cases. Hezbollah has always had a presence here. They raise funds here, and they can always be called into action as an active terrorist cell,” Swecker added. “So I think the alert here, especially around Christmas time, is elevated. It probably ought to be higher than what it is right now, because I mentioned that complacency earlier. And I fear that complacency as someone who has a background in this field.”

Concerns over the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the U.S. southern border have raised questions over the vetting process of illegal immigrants entering the country.

On Tuesday United States Border Patrol (USPB) Chief Jason Owens announced in a social post that an unidentified South African national who was “suspected of terror”  was arrested in Brooklyn, N.Y. The illegal immigrant had originally been detained in Texas for criminal trespassing but was released due to the “information available at the time.”

In August an estimated 99 individuals on the U.S. terrorist watch list had been released into the country after crossing through the southern border, according to a congressional report. The report found that between fiscal years 2021 and 2023 USBP agents encountered more than 250 illegal migrants on the terrorist watchlist, with nearly 100 of those individuals being later released into the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security.

Continue Reading

Trending

X