Asia Pacific

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Pelosi defends Taiwan visit amid China tensions: ‘Never give in to autocrats’

      by

      Pelosi defends Taiwan visit amid China tensions: ‘Never give in to autocrats’‘We cannot stand by as China proceeds to threaten Taiwan,’ says speaker in op-ed, but trip poses diplomatic headache for Biden 01:00Having landed in Taiwan amid soaring tensions with China’s military, the US House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, defended her controversial trip to the self-ruling island, saying she was making clear that American leaders “never give in to autocrats” in an opinion piece published in the Washington Post.“We cannot stand by as [China] proceeds to threaten Taiwan – and democracy itself,” said Pelosi’s piece, published just as the veteran California congresswoman’s plane touched down on Tuesday. “Indeed, we take this trip at a time when the world faces a choice between autocracy and democracy.”Given that Pelosi’s trip presents a serious diplomatic headache for the Joe Biden White House, there had been much speculation about the motivations behind the controversial visit. In her op-ed Pelosi struck a hard line against China’s position that her trip was a provocation and placed it in the context of a broader global struggle over political freedom.In the article Pelosi said: “We take this trip at a time when the world faces a choice between autocracy and democracy. As Russia wages its premeditated, illegal war against Ukraine, killing thousands of innocents – even children – it is essential that America and our allies make clear that we never give in to autocrats.”Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan is unfolding during a tour of Asian nations this week. Her diplomatic mission aims to punctuate a foreign policy career that has seen her defend human rights and democratic values abroad. But it has infuriated China, which claims Taiwan as a province of its own and has threatened retaliation over the visit. The US officially supports a “one-China” policy but in practice treats Taiwan as an economic and democratic partner.She is the highest-ranking US official to visit Taiwan since the Republican Newt Gingrich went there as the House speaker in 1997, going there even after Biden recently said the American military did not think it was a good idea for her to travel there.Chinese state media reported that fighter jets were flying across the Taiwan strait just as Pelosi’s plane landed in the island’s capital, Taipei.Analysts do not expect China to follow through with a hostile military act, at least not while Pelosi is there. But already on Tuesday authorities in China had announced a ban on imports from more than 100 Taiwanese food companies, which many had interpreted as retribution over Pelosi’s trip.If her piece in the Washington Post is any indication, none of it fazed Pelosi, who in 1991 unfurled a banner in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square hailing the pro-democracy student activists killed there two years earlier.Pelosi’s op-ed said it was 43 years ago that the US Congress passed an act recognizing Taiwanese democracy that thenpresident Jimmy Carter signed into law.“It made a solemn vow by the United States to support the defense of Taiwan [and] to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means … [a] grave concern to the United States,” Pelosi’s piece added, noting that her trip sent an important message nearly six months after Russia invaded Ukraine and unbalanced global peace.“Today,” Pelosi continued, “America must remember that vow. We must stand by Taiwan, which is an island of resistance.”TopicsNancy PelosiTaiwanChinaBiden administrationJoe BidenUS foreign policyAsia PacificnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the death penalty: a long way to go | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on the death penalty: a long way to goEditorialThough capital punishment is in global decline, there are horrifying exceptions to the general trend Next month, Oklahoma will embark on a grim schedule: an execution nearly every month until the end of 2024. In September, it is due to execute Richard Glossip, whom many believe to be the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice. A five-year moratorium has come to an end with the failure of a lawsuit arguing that the use of lethal injections was unconstitutional.Oklahoma is not the only place that is enthusiastically resuming state-sanctioned killing after a pause. Myanmar’s rulers announced on Monday that they had executed four prisoners, including Phyo Zeya Thaw, a rapper and former MP, drawing international condemnation. This was the first time the death penalty had been used there for more than 30 years, said the UN. And on Tuesday it emerged that Tomohiro Kato has been executed in Japan for stabbing seven people to death in 2008.Recorded executions fell sharply in 2020 across the world due to the pandemic, but are now rebounding. Amnesty International says that it saw a 20% increase in 2021, including a sharp rise in Iran to 314 deaths. This year, Saudi Arabia executed 81 men on a single day in March, two of them for participation in violent anti-government protests. Singapore executed four people for drug offences after a two-year pause – including, despite an international outcry, Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam, a young man with an IQ of 69 who said that he was coerced into carrying a small amount of heroin. His case has helped to stir debate about capital punishment. In Myanmar, more than 100 other people have been handed death sentences since last year’s seizure of power by the army. The broad trend is towards the decline of capital punishment. Almost 160 years after Venezuela became the first country to abolish it, well over a hundred more have followed suit (including Papua New Guinea this January), and about 30 more have effectively abolished it, for example through formal moratoria. Despite the increase in 2021, the total number of deaths – 579 – was the second lowest that Amnesty International has recorded since 2010.But a huge black hole remains: the organisation believes that China executes thousands of prisoners a year, but the figure is a state secret, as in Vietnam and North Korea. And the overall fall in the documented use of the death penalty is accompanied by extreme and shocking cases in places that cling to it. The US is also a glaring example of the way that progress can be turned back: 50 years ago this summer, the supreme court struck down the death penalty. Four years later it restored it. More recently, the last administration dramatically resumed federal executions; more were carried out under Donald Trump than any other president in the past century. Though the current attorney general, Merrick Garland, imposed a moratorium, that could be undone by the next administration.There are many reasons to be disturbed by capital punishment. These include agonising deaths witnessed in the US, wrongful convictions, the blatant discrimination of criminal justice systems that results in the disproportionate killing of ethnic minority offenders, and the use of the death penalty for non-violent crimes and political offences. In Myanmar, relatives of the executed men were reportedly denied access to their bodies. But underlying all of this is the broader understanding that continues to spread through the world: that states have no right to take the lives of citizens.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 300 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at guardian.letters@theguardian.comTopicsCapital punishmentOpinionLaw (US)US politicsMyanmarSouth and central AsiaSingaporeAsia PacificeditorialsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Nancy, I’ll go with you’: Trump allies back Pelosi’s proposed Taiwan visit

      by

      ‘Nancy, I’ll go with you’: Trump allies back Pelosi’s proposed Taiwan visitMike Pompeo and Mark Esper support visit to ‘freedom-loving Taiwan’ but Biden concerned any trip would antagonise Beijing Plans for Nancy Pelosi, the US House speaker, to visit Taiwan have prompted opposition from China and the American military but support from Republicans in Washington, including former members of the Trump administration.Trump’s second secretary of defense, Mark Esper, told CNN: “I think if the speaker wants to go, she should go.”Japan sees increasing threat to Taiwan amid Russia’s invasion of UkraineRead moreMike Pompeo, Trump’s second secretary of state, tweeted: “Nancy, I’ll go with you. I’m banned in China, but not freedom-loving Taiwan. See you there!”No date has been set for a Pelosi visit to Taiwan, a self-governing democracy that Beijing claims is a breakaway province. Many observers expect some form of military action by China some time soon, particularly in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.China has said a Pelosi visit would “severely undermine” its “sovereignty and territorial integrity, gravely impact the foundation of China-US relations, and send a seriously wrong signal to Taiwan independence forces”.Joe Biden said last week: “I think that the military thinks it’s not a good idea right now. But I don’t know what the status of it is.”The White House has not weighed in officially. On Monday, Biden’s press secretary, Karin Jean-Pierre, said: “The administration routinely provides members of Congress with information and context for potential travel, including geopolitical and security considerations.“Members of Congress will make their own decisions.”The state department spokesperson, Ned Price, said: “I will just restate our policy, and that is that we remain committed to maintaining cross-strait peace and stability and our ‘One China’ policy” – a reference to the US position that recognises Beijing as the government of China but allows for informal relations and defense ties with Taiwan.That was a policy Trump initially seemed to jeopardise, telling Fox News in December 2016, after he won the election: “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘One China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”In office, Trump agreed to follow the policy. But his administration was vociferous in its support of Taiwan and antagonism toward Beijing, with some observers suggesting officials wanted to force the Biden administration, which followed Trump’s, into confrontation with China.Pelosi has said it is “important for us to show support for Taiwan”. She also said she believed that when Biden referred to US military concerns, he meant “maybe the military was afraid our plane would get shot down or something like that by the Chinese”.Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska, said: “Speaker Pelosi should go to Taiwan, and President Biden should make it abundantly clear to Chairman Xi [Jinping] that there’s not a damn thing the Chinese Communist party can do about it.“No more feebleness and self-deterrence. This is very simple: Taiwan is an ally and the speaker of the House of Representatives should meet with the Taiwanese men and women who stare down the threat of Communist China.”Also on Monday, the New York Times reported that the Biden administration “has grown increasingly anxious … about China’s statements and actions regarding Taiwan, with some officials fearing that Chinese leaders might try to move against [it] … over the next year and a half – perhaps by trying to cut off access to all or part of the Taiwan Strait, through which US naval ships regularly pass”.The Democratic senator Chris Coons of Delaware, who is close to Biden, told the Times: “One school of thought is that the lesson is ‘go early and go strong’ before there is time to strengthen Taiwan’s defenses. And we may be heading to an earlier confrontation – more a squeeze than an invasion – than we thought.”The Times also said the White House was “quietly work[ing] to try to dissuade” Pelosi staging the first visit by a speaker to Taiwan since 1997.The Republican speaker who made that trip, Newt Gingrich, said: “What is the Pentagon thinking when it publicly warns against Speaker Pelosi going to Taiwan?“Timidity is dangerous.”TopicsUS foreign policyUS politicsNancy PelosiChinaTaiwanAsia PacificJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      The Russia-Ukraine War Shows History Did Not End, Ethics Did

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Appeal to the UN to Protect Hazaras in Afghanistan

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Why Did the Pakistani Parliament Pass a Vote of No-Confidence against Imran Khan?

      by

      The unprecedented political drama finally concluded with a successful vote of no-confidence in the National Assembly, Pakistan’s lower house of parliament. On April 9, the National Assembly of Pakistan ousted Prime Minister Imran Khan in a late-night vote. After an entire day full of dilatory tactics and backstage negotiations, the opposition bloc ultimately cobbled together 174 members to vote in favor of the resolution — two more than the required 172 vote threshold. Sudden resignations from both the speaker and the deputy speaker allowed Sardar Ayaz Sadiq to take charge. He is a former speaker of the National Assembly and a senior leader of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), known as PML-N. With Sadiq in the speaker’s chair, Khan became the first Pakistani prime minister to lose a no-confidence vote in parliament.

      Economic Collapse, Not Foreign Conspiracy Led to Fall

      Khan claimed there was a foreign conspiracy to oust him. He tried to subvert both the parliament and the judiciary to cling on to power. Yet his claims of a foreign hand in his ouster appear overly exaggerated. In three years and eight months as prime minister, Khan was known more for headlines than for results. He was vocal on the incendiary Kashmir issue where he sought US intervention. Khan was in the limelight for visiting China for the Winter Olympics and for visiting Russia even as Russian troops invaded Ukraine. For all his flirtation with China and Russia, Khan did little to hurt US interests in the region. In fact, Khan was a middleman between the US and the Taliban that led to the Doha Agreement. He facilitated the peaceful takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban, allowing US troops to withdraw from the region.

      The real reason Khan was voted out of the prime minister’s office is his lack of competence in economic matters. Inflation has run persistently high and stood at 12.7% in March. Not all of it is Khan’s fault. Commodity and energy prices have been surging. However, Khan’s government presided over the greatest increase in public debt in Pakistan’s history. The nation’s debt went up by over $99 billion (18 trillion Pakistani rupees). This unleashed inflationary pressures in the economy and caused the economy to enter free fall.

      Pakistan’s foreign currency reserves dropped dramatically. On March 25, these reserves were $12,047.3 million. By April 1, they had fallen to $11.32 billion, a loss of $728 million in a mere six days. The Pakistani rupee also fell to a record low of 191 to the dollar.

      What Next for Pakistan?

      After the ouster of Khan, PML-N leader Shahbaz Sharif has taken over. He is known as a competent administrator. Political analysts believe that Sharif would pivot Pakistan toward a traditional foreign policy vis-à-vis the US and Europe. His government has already resumed talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It will try its best to avail the remaining $3 billion under the IMF’s $6 billion loan program more speedily to stabilize its foreign exchange reserves and strengthen the rupee.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Political uncertainty was roiling markets. They might settle now that a new government is in charge. Pakistan faces a tricky situation, both politically and economically. Khan still has ardent supporters and the country is divided. The economy is perhaps at its lowest ebb at a time when the risk of a global recession is running high. To navigate such a critical period, a coalition government formed by an alliance of seasoned politicians might be a blessing for Pakistan.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      US tells some consulate staff to leave Shanghai as Covid outbreak worsens

      by

      US tells some consulate staff to leave Shanghai as Covid outbreak worsensState department cites risk of children and parents being separated as EU warns zero-Covid strategy eroding investor confidence

      See all our coronavirus coverage
      The US has said it has asked all its non-essential staff and their family members at the Shanghai consulate to leave, in Washington’s latest response to the financial hub’s handling of the worsening Covid outbreak.The state department ordered the departure “due to the ongoing Covid-19 outbreak” there, according to a spokesperson from its Beijing embassy. “It is best for our employees and their families to be reduced in number and our operations to be scaled down as we deal with the changing circumstances on the ground,” the person said on Tuesday.Washington’s latest move came after the state department on Friday announced that non-emergency personnel could voluntarily leave the Shanghai consulate. It is not clear why the departure of those workers had become mandatory in a short span of a few days.‘This is inhumane’: the cost of zero Covid in ShanghaiRead moreChina responded angrily to the earlier voluntary departure order, saying Beijing was “strongly dissatisfied” with and “firmly opposed” the US’s “groundless accusation” about China’s Covid policy.Shanghai’s handling of the latest Covid outbreak has made international headlines in the last few weeks. But the most controversial of its practices had been separating Covid-positive children from their parents. Although the authorities have since made some concessions, the state department cited the risk of parents and children being separated in its announcement.Shanghai on Tuesday reported 22,348 new asymptomatic coronavirus cases and 994 symptomatic cases for 11 April, the local government said. Asymptomatic cases were down from 25,173 a day earlier. The symptomatic cases rose from 914.The harsh lockdown in China’s most populous city – home to nearly 26 million people – has also caused a backlash among its residents. In the last few weeks, many patients have complained about being unable to access medical care facilities. Stories of food shortages have prompted citizens in other parts of China to rush to stockpile goods.The situation in Shanghai has also led the EU chamber of commerce to warn that China’s zero-Covid strategy was “eroding foreign investors’ confidence”. In a letter, it urged the Chinese government to shift its approach by giving the Chinese population access to mRNA vaccines and allowing people with mild symptoms to quarantine at home.Despite international pressure, Beijing did not seem able to adjust its zero-Covid policy, said Chen Zhengming, a professor of epidemiology at Oxford University. “China is in such a dilemma right now that if it sticks to this policy there’d be big burden to the economy and cause secondary disasters such as [those] in medical care. But if it loosens the policy, there may be a huge spike in new infections.”On Monday, Shanghai authorities started easing lockdown in some parts of the city, despite reporting a record of more than 25,000 new Covid cases. Residents of neighbourhoods where there have been no positive cases for at least two weeks were allowed some degree of freedom, but they were not allowed to travel to those still under severe lockdowns.Chinese officials admitted the situation in Shanghai was concerning. “The epidemic is in a rapid increase phase, with social transmission still not brought under effective control,” said Lei Zhenglong of the National Health Commission at a briefing in Beijing on Tuesday. “The forecast for the next few days is that the number of infected people will remain at a high level.”TopicsChinaCoronavirusAsia PacificUS foreign policyUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in World Politics

      COVID-19 Policies Carry Implications for South Korea’s Presidential Election

      by

      On top of a highly contested presidential race and the election of People Power Party (PPP) candidate Yoon Suk-yeol on March 9, South Korea’s COVID-19 numbers are rapidly rising, with the country experiencing over 300,000 infections a day and record rates of COVID-related deaths. Despite the increase in cases, the South Korean government has removed several COVID-19 policies, including extending business closing times and removing the vaccine or negative test requirement to enter many public spaces.

      Although South Korea has reduced its prior strict contact tracing policies, the percentage of critically ill patients is less than the country’s last peak in December 2021. The key question now is what the South Korean public thinks about the government’s COVID-19 response.

      Getting the Public Behind the Fight on Misinformation

      READ MORE

      South Korea’s 2020 national assembly election was internationally praised for balancing ease of voting amid pandemic restrictions and provided a blueprint for other countries, with President Moon Jae-in’s administration largely praised for its efficient response to the pandemic. South Korea even allowed citizens who have tested positive to cast a ballot at the polls once they recovered, even if voting had officially ended. 

      However, with cases rising in late 2021, evaluations of the Moon administration’s handling have soured, although still hovering around 40% — the highest in the country’s democratic history for an outgoing president and similar to his vote share in 2017. Yet Yoon and the Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung, both polling under 40% in the run-up to the election, declined to outline any pandemic response plan until November, when there was already a shortage of hospital beds — likely a result of the government’s “living with COVID” plan. 

      Similarly, minor candidates have not presented clear COVID-19 policies. Even beyond the “living with COVID” strategies, candidates have not shared concrete plans to build back infrastructure after the public health crisis. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      To understand South Korean evolving perceptions of COVID-19 policies, we conducted a pre-election web survey of 945 South Koreans on February 18-22 via Macromill Embrain using quota sampling on gender, region and age. We asked respondents to evaluate on a five-point Likert scale the following statement: “I am satisfied with the South Korean government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.”

      We found, at best, mixed support for the government’s response, with overall disagreement outpacing agreement — 43.6% versus 35.8%. As before, perceptions deviate on party identification, with supporters of the ruling Democratic Party (DP) largely satisfied with the response (64.8%), while supporters of the main conservative party, the PPP, are largely dissatisfied (71.4%). 

      Supporters of the two smaller parties, the progressive Justice Party and the center-right People’s Party, showed responses that were more mixed, perhaps because candidates had not emphasized COVID-19 policies in campaign rhetoric. Regression analysis finds that women and older respondents are more supportive of COVID-19 policies, while after controlling for age, gender, education, income and political ideology, supporters of the DP were still more likely to evaluate pandemic policies favorably while PPP supporters were less likely to do so. 

      Noting this partisan divergence, we next wanted to identify whether views on COVID policy may have indirectly influenced support for one candidate over another. Regression analysis finds that even after controlling for demographic factors and party identification, satisfaction with COVID-19 policies negatively corresponds with voting for Yoon and positively for Lee. 

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      However, we also found that views of COVID-19 policies largely correspond with evaluations of President Moon’s job performance, questioning whether these measures were driving evaluations of Moon or whether perceptions now may simply be picking up sentiments regarding Moon irrespective of the actual policies. Further analysis shows that including evaluations of Moon’s performance in our earlier statistical models results in the COVID-19 evaluation failing to reach statistical significance. 

      Whereas COVID-19 policies helped Moon Jae-in’s party in 2020 win a clear majority in the national assembly, our evidence suggests evaluations now may have contributed to an anti-incumbency vote even as both of the major candidates lack clear policy prescriptions related to the pandemic. Regardless, President-elect Yoon will need to address a changing COVID-19 environment amid a fatigued and divided Korean public.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More