Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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.

Censorship Industrial Complex

Who tries to silence free speech? Apparently who ever is in power.

Published on

Now that Trump is running Washington, Conservative thinkers must ponder a new-found appreciation for silencing speech they don’t like.

From StosselTV

Donald Trump, before he was reelected, said he’d end government censorship. But now that he’s in office? He calls speech he doesn’t like “illegal.”

Free Speech should be a bedrock American value, no matter who’s in office. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, Republicans, who once complained about censorship, became censors. Democrats suddenly flip-flopped. All politicians should remember, the way to fight speech you don’t like, is with more speech, not censorship.

After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.

——————————————

Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.

Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.

Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.

———

To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib…

———

Continue Reading

Courageous Discourse

No Exit Wound – EITHER there was a very public “miracle” OR Charlie Kirk’s murder is not as it appears

Published on

By John Leake

Turning Point Spokesman: “No Exit Wound a Miracle”

Charlie Kirk Show producer Andrew Kolvet repeats extremely dubious claim purportedly made by “the surgeon who operated on Kirk.”

Monday Blaze Media (relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey) reported the following:

Turning Point USA spokesman and executive producer of the “Charlie Kirk Show” Andrew Kolvet revealed new details about the shooting that even doctors are calling a miracle. According to Kolvet, the surgeon who operated on Kirk claimed that the high-velocity bullet was powerful enough to kill multiple large animals — and “should have gone through” his body. But for some reason, Kirk’s body was able to stop it.

“I want to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound with Charlie,” Kolvet wrote in a post on X.

“The fact that there wasn’t an exit wound is probably another miracle, and I want people to know,” Kolvet continued, explaining that he had spoken with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital.

“He said the bullet ‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round. I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, etc,’” he recalled.

“But it didn’t go through. Charlie’s body stopped it,” he added.

When he mentioned to the doctor that there were “dozens of staff, students, and special guests standing directly behind Charlie” when he was shot, the doctor reportedly replied, “It was an absolute miracle that someone else didn’t get killed.”

“His bone was so healthy and the density was so so impressive that he’s like the man of steel,” Kolvet recalls the doctor saying.

This is not a credible statement, and it raises a number of concerns.

It strikes me as very perplexing that a “surgeon operated on Kirk,” because in the video of the shooting, Charlie reacted with a decorticate posture—that is, an abnormal body posture characterized by flexion of the upper limbs—caused by severe trauma to the central nervous system. This indicates that the bullet either directly struck his cervical spinal cord, or the shock wave of the supersonic bullet passing near his spinal cord traumatized it.

A 150-grain, .30-06 bullet’s energy at 150 yards from the muzzle varies by ammunition, but a common hunting cartridge has an estimated value of approximately 1,800-2,000 foot-pounds (with the bullet traveling at about 2500 feet per second). In other words, the .30 caliber (.30 inch diameter) metal projectile struck his neck with sufficient kinetic energy to move a 2,000 pound mass a linear distance of one foot.

If the bullet that struck Charlie’s cervical spinal cord was a .30-06 fired from 150 yards away, it would have:

1). Severed his spinal cord, killing him instantly.

2). Passed through his neck.

Note that the cervical vertebrae are supported by strong muscles and have high compressive strength, but are far too delicate to stop a .30-06 bullet traveling at 2,500 feet per second.

If ALL of the kinetic energy of the bullet was absorbed by Charlie’s neck, it would have done spectacular trauma to his neck, as distinct from producing the clean bullet hole visible in the video footage that ruptured his Carotid artery.

Though I appreciate that some may find a supernatural explanation to be consoling, it seems to me that the investigation should not rest on the this explanation.

As I wrote a few weeks ago: If I were investigating the murder, I would consider the hypothesis that Charlie was shot with a weapon equipped with a suppressor and loaded with a subsonic cartridge to further reduce the sound. I have seen footage of someone firing a rifle with this setup, and the shot was amazingly quiet. The effective range of such a weapon is about 100 yards or less, and the shooter must be very skilled.

However, such a setup could fire a subsonic projectile that would penetrate a human neck without passing through it. In this scenario, the actual assassin (firing the suppressed rifle) hypothetically coordinated the timing of his shot with someone else firing a normal (supersonic and loud) rifle cartridge into the air at the same time to create a distraction or red herring.

In a functioning society in which the people trust their authorities—including their medical examiners—it would be easy to discover what happened and to disclose at least a preliminary report that would satisfy most reasonable people. The trouble our Republic is facing now is that so many of us no longer trust our federal and state authorities to tell us the truth.

For example, we have strong grounds for suspecting that medical examiners are not diligently investigating (with the proper analytic methods) unexpected, fatal cardiac arrests in young people to determine if they were caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.

Share

Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X