Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen appears poised to win another four-year term in Saturday’s election, her campaign buoyed by a shored up political base and improved economic growth. She’s also received a boost from the backfiring of China’s pressure tactics – not only toward the island of 23 million people, but also nearby Hong Kong.

If Ms. Tsai prevails, her victory would signal a setback for China’s strategy of coercing Taiwan toward closer ties and unification during her first term. That might prompt authoritarian Beijing to reconsider its approach to the democratic island, or, more probably, to escalate its full-court press, Asia analysts say.

“It’s very likely Tsai will win reelection on Jan. 11, and I think we are in for, unfortunately, another four years of very high tension in the [Taiwan] Strait,” says Derek Grossman, a senior defense analyst at RAND Corp.   

“We’ve already seen that since her election in 2016, with China using diplomatic, economic, military, and information coercive means to get Taiwan to acknowledge, from Beijing’s standpoint, that it is part of China,” Mr. Grossman says. “You are going to see more of that.”     

Ms. Tsai, whose majority Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) backs Taiwan’s separate identity from mainland China, has gained popular support for her rejection of Beijing’s efforts to push unification with Taiwan under the same “one country, two systems” formula that governed China’s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macau. For the past eight months, as hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers continued to take to the streets, many Taiwanese have viewed the crisis as a caution against tightening their own fraught relationship with the mainland.

“Hong Kong has given Tsai a significant boost, because she can point to a tangible example nearby where there is another state living under ‘one country, two systems’ and it is obviously not working out well for them,” says Mr. Grossman.

Indeed, the president’s surge in the polls – and the downward slide of her opponent, the relatively inexperienced Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT) candidate Han Kuo-yu – began last June after Ms. Tsai championed the mass pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. She went from lagging behind Mr. Han by 10 to 20 percentage points in the polls a year ago, to leading him by 20 to 30 points in December.

The legal status of Hong Kong as part of China differs greatly from Taiwan’s de facto independence, but Taiwanese see in Hong Kong a potentially dark vision of their own future given Beijing’s goal of extending the “one country, two systems” model to Taiwan – a model nearly 80% of the Taiwanese public rejects, according to a government survey in March. Ms. Tsai’s campaign recently released a split-screen video contrasting tranquil scenes of teen lives in a democratic Taiwan with images of police repression of Hong Kong’s young pro-democracy protesters – and urging voters to “stand with freedom” when they vote Jan. 11.

Even Mr. Han – who has favored warmer ties with China for economic reasons – responded to the massive Hong Kong protests by vowing in June that, if elected president, he would never allow “one country, two systems” to be implemented in Taiwan, “unless it is over my dead body.”

Those remarks apparently galled Beijing, which had indirectly backed Mr. Han’s successful run for mayor in the southern city of Kaohsiung in 2018, and led to a reduction of support, according to Paul Huang, a Taiwanese journalist who has investigated China’s influence operations in Taiwan’s elections.

Tyrone Siu/Reuters

Presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu, of the opposition Nationalist Kuomintang Party (KMT), attends an election campaign in Taipei, Taiwan, Jan. 9, 2020.

“This statement really angered people in Beijing because, from the Chinese Communist Party perspective, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you, and it really crossed the line,” Mr. Huang says. “From that point on they just decided this guy is not our guy, and then they cut support to a lot of things that were funneling money to him.” 

Escalation ahead?

China’s leader Xi Jinping reiterated in January 2019 Beijing’s policy to unify Taiwan with mainland China under the “one country, two systems” model – by force if necessary – warning the issue should not be handed from generation to generation.

Barring an unexpected win by Mr. Han or trailing third candidate James Soong of the People First Party, a victory by Ms. Tsai would highlight how Beijing’s pressure tactics have not worked, analysts say.

“On the part of the Beijing leadership, it’s ... not catastrophic but certainly an extremely unfavorable development if Tsai Ing-wen gets reelected,” says Denny Roy, senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu. “It will generally increase the weight in the debate of those who argue that Taiwan is slipping away and we, China, need to be doing something different to staunch that trend. That is the real danger,” he says.

This might, in turn, lead Beijing to launch “a comprehensive policy review,” and internal debate over long-term strategy, writes Kharis Templeman, an adviser to the Project on Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, in a paper last month.

More likely, however, China’s pressure on Taiwan will continue across the board in the military, economic, political, and diplomatic spheres, analysts say.

During Ms. Tsai’s first term, China increased military air and naval patrols around Taiwan and held live-fire exercises in the 80-mile-wide strait separating Taiwan from the mainland. Taiwan, for its part, has continued to bolster its ability to defend against a mainland invasion, including through a purchase announced this summer of an estimated $2.2 billion worth of U.S. Abrams tanks and Stinger air defense systems.

China has waged influence operations involving both traditional and social media in Taiwan in an effort to sway elections, leading Taiwan to pass an anti-infiltration law last month that increases penalties for those who help “external hostile forces” to lobby Taiwanese politicians or organize political activities.

Economically, Beijing has sought to punish Taipei by imposing a ban last summer on individual travelers to Taiwan, causing a decline in Chinese visitors to the island in recent months. Nevertheless, Taiwan welcomed a record number of tourists from all countries last year. Taiwan also achieved solid economic growth last year – partly due to shifts caused by the U.S.-China trade war – with strong export gains and low unemployment.

On the diplomatic front, China also halted talks between government representatives, while moving to increase Taiwan’s diplomatic isolation by enticing more countries to switch recognition from Taipei to Beijing. Overall, the number of countries that have diplomatic relations with Taiwan dropped from 22 in 2016 to 15 currently.

Still, some analysts downplay the significance of the dwindling of such formal ties. “What should really be important” to Taiwan is “very strong unofficial relations with important countries like the United States and Japan,” Mr. Roy says.

Taiwan’s officials, for their part, stress they will forge ahead. “Although China seems determined to keep us out of the international arena,” Taiwan’s Foreign Minister, Joseph Wu, said in a statement on Thursday, “the Taiwanese government and people are determined to be a force for good in the world.”

They were doctors and accountants. They were pursuing lines of discovery in Ph.D. programs in medicine and science. They were young students with big ambitions.

The victims of the plane crash Wednesday morning in Tehran that killed all 176 on board, including 63 Canadians, were mourned at a vigil Thursday night in Toronto, one of several held across the country as candles flickered in the cold.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the crash a “tragedy that shocked the world.” Its repercussions are global. But this is also very poignantly a Canadian tragedy, and a sign of the era.

The vast majority of passengers were families and students who had been visiting relatives in Iran and returning to Canada. They were some of the very residents and immigrant families who have been held up as symbols of Canada’s embrace of diversity and multiculturalism while the U.S. shuts its doors.

And now, as Western intelligence indicates that it was not mechanical error but an Iranian surface-to-air missile that brought the Ukraine International Airlines plane down, Canada feels it’s getting dragged deeper into U.S.-Iran conflict. The flight took off just hours after Tehran launched missiles at U.S. (and Canadian) forces on airbases in Iraq in retaliation for the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general last week. Some here blame the U.S. as much as the Iranian regime for the loss being mourned from one Canadian coast to the other.

“Yes I’m angry at the U.S.,” says Naseeva Ali, who immigrated to Canada from Trinidad and Tobago. Her colleague at a Toronto accounting firm lost his wife and young daughter in the crash. They had stayed in Iran for a few more days with family while Ms. Ali’s co-worker returned to his job. “We just felt frozen when we found out,” she says. “I’m here to support him, and the children. When I saw all those kids,” she says, “the generation we lost.”

Canada has increasingly become home for a new generation of Iranians. Toronto, often dubbed “Tehran-to,” counts 100,000 born outside Canada, the second largest diaspora after Los Angeles. The communities differ; the vast majority of Iranians in the U.S. immigrated during the 1979 revolution. Canada’s Iranian community is newer and thus closer to Iran, as immigration has remained more open here while the economic situation in Iran worsens, says Alidad Mafinezam, the president of the West Asia Council, which promotes exchange for diaspora communities. Of the 176 passengers, 138 were on their way to Canada, to visit relatives, study, or work.

“When Iranians come here as students, or permanent residents, the vast majority stay because of the difficulties of life in Iran. So we lost 138 current and coming Canadians,” he says.

Canada’s academic world has been particularly devastated. The number of Iranian foreign students, for example, increased by 48% between 2017 and 2018, according to the Canadian Bureau for International Education. This follows a general uptick of international students in Canada who are finding a warmer welcome here than in the U.S.

That was underscored by the sheer collective talent – in science, medicine, technology, and entrepreneurism – that was Canada-bound on Wednesday.

Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi, a professor of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto, says the victim list reflects the diversity, whether religious, cultural, or professional, of the diaspora and counters stereotypes often perpetuated in the media of Iranians and immigrants generally, especially Muslims.

“Iranians may have one head in their religious textbooks, but they have another one in their physics books, and one in their architectural books,” he says. Canada has benefited from that diversity; he himself moved to Canada from the U.S., in part for family reasons but with relief after 9/11 as he saw American intolerance growing.

His university lost six students. The University of Alberta in Edmonton lost 10 members, from faculty to Ph.D. students. Across Canadian campuses flags were lowered to half mast. 

Classmates of Arad Zarei, who was a senior in high school on the flight, clung together Thursday night, sharing turns holding a collage they made of the teen’s school pictures throughout the years or posing with friends. They say he wanted to be an engineer. “He was always optimistic about improving himself, inside and out,” says his friend Soroush Mirza. “I never saw him giving up.”

“He was the best person on earth,” added another of the dozens of schoolmates from Richmond Green Secondary School.

The grief is compounded by geopolitics and anger directed at both sides in the conflict. At the vigil Thursday night, angry shouts of “justice” punctuated the sorrow, just hours after Mr. Trudeau announced evidence that it was Iran’s fault, which Iran denies. And yet there is also blame directed at U.S. President Donald Trump for ordering the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani and thrusting global diplomacy into turmoil.

Reporters tried to press Mr. Trudeau on what responsibility the U.S. bears for the tragedy; he reiterated that he’s awaiting a full-scale investigation. Canada finds itself in a vulnerable position, with severed diplomatic relations with Iran since 2012 and with a complicated relationship with its longtime ally under Mr. Trump.

But public opinion has already answered the question that Mr. Trudeau wouldn’t. Dr. Tavakoli-Targhi says that U.S. sanctions and restrictions, which have made the Tehran-Kyiv-Toronto route a popular, lower-cost alternative, also play a role.

“All of these sanctions that are imposed on Iran are also impacting the kind of routes that people take, the kind of options that people have for traveling, and then you have the kind of tragedy like this happening. … So many get killed because the option of traveling back to Toronto has become increasingly very limited,” he says. “No one is paying more for Trumpism than the Iranians who are living in North America and Europe and outside of Europe.”

“The tears involuntarily come out, because I see myself as having been on that flight,” he adds. “Everyone puts himself or herself in that position, ‘This could be me.’”

Hypocrisy in politics is a time-honored tradition. Republicans slam Democrats for doing and saying the very things they once did and said, and vice versa. 

Years before he became president, Donald Trump railed against President Barack Obama’s aggressive use of executive power. Today, President Trump faces criticism for doing the same. President Obama ramped up drone attacks against militants and terrorists, but when Mr. Trump ordered the killing by drone of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who had much American blood on his hands, Democrats cried foul. 

In 1998, Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York declared the impeachment of President Bill Clinton “an undoing of a national election.” Today, Republicans say the same of Democrats over the Trump impeachment, which Congressman Nadler – now Judiciary Committee chairman – calls “imperative.”

The list is endless. And the rise of the internet, which captures every tweet and video clip in perpetuity, makes it easier than ever to catch hypocrites in the act. Which is pretty much every politician, and plenty of voters too. 

But today, it seems, hypocrisy is particularly rampant – and there’s a reason. “It’s a function of our extreme partisan polarization, and really, it justifies anything,” says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “Hypocrisy is the lifeblood of politics.” 

In behaving hypocritically, each political “tribe” can argue it is serving a greater good: the furthering of its political goals. During his impeachment, liberal feminists stood by President Bill Clinton, despite his predatory history toward women. His support for women’s rights won him a pass from them. 

For Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, it meant blocking an Obama Supreme Court pick in 2016, saying voters should have input in an election year. Yet when asked more recently if the Senate would consider a high court nominee if there’s a vacancy in 2020, Senator McConnell didn’t hesitate: “Oh, we’d fill it,” he said, to the surprise of no one.

“It is pragmatic for politicians to act like hypocrites during periods of hyperpartisanship, since they otherwise might be harassed or expelled from their group for disloyalty,” writes Jay Van Bavel, an associate professor of psychology at New York University, in an email. 

Indeed, the only House Republican to call for impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, was so ostracized by fellow Republicans that he quit the party and became an independent. 

All the hypocrisy may seem enough to make one cynical. And some may wonder if the level of hypocrisy, on both sides, has reached the point where voters will just disengage.

That’s hardly likely, political analysts say, given the strong views about Mr. Trump, for and against. Witness the big turnout during the 2018 midterm elections – 49.2% of eligible voters, the highest recorded rate for a midterm since 1914. 

Turnout in November could shatter modern records. But no matter the winner, expectations are low that today’s hyperpartisanship will end anytime soon. A recent Battleground Poll, sponsored by Georgetown University, found that the average American voter believes the nation is two-thirds of the way to the edge of civil war.

The poll also showed that voters hold contradictory views on what they’re looking for: More than 80% agree that political leaders should strive for “compromise and common ground” – but they’re also “tired of leaders compromising their values and ideals and want leaders who will stand up to the other side.” 

The current standoff over impeachment presents a singular test of America’s ability to self-govern, as established norms – such as cooperating with subpoenas – fall by the wayside, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. 

“We’re seeing a point at which we’re calling into question whether our institutions can function the way they were intended to function in a polarized age,” Professor Jamieson says. 

But in other ways, commonly cited examples of hypocrisy may in fact represent a misunderstanding of the people who hold seemingly contradictory views. Strong support for Mr. Trump by white Evangelicals is one case, Ms. Jamieson says. 

Mr. Trump’s morally dubious past, including marital infidelity and vulgar talk about women, may seem to disqualify him from support by religious conservatives. But that ignores the edict to “hate the sin, love the sinner” and the biblical tradition of forgiveness. 

Furthermore, Ms. Jamieson notes, Mr. Trump is delivering for this key constituency – foremost, nominating anti-abortion judges. “He’s running on promises kept,” she says. “That’s the opposite of hypocrisy.” 

The forgiveness argument plays down the recent mini-revolt within the evangelical world, as seen in the recent editorial in Christianity Today supporting Trump’s impeachment and removal from office, citing “gross immorality and ethical incompetence.” The editor-in-chief, Mark Galli, argued for consistency; the publication had supported impeachment for both President Richard Nixon and Mr. Clinton, also on moral grounds. But the Trump editorial was met with vocal opposition from white Evangelicals and only quiet praise – though the magazine did net 3,000 new subscriptions.

To Republican elites who oppose Mr. Trump, and are working for his defeat in November, evangelical supporters are a prime target.

The first video produced by the so-called Lincoln Project sews together clips of Mr. Trump speaking of faith – including his Jan. 3 address to Evangelicals in Miami – with clips of him crudely attacking opponents.

But such activism may be counterproductive. When presented with contradictory information, people are motivated to reduce feelings of discomfort, and “may therefore double down on their beliefs or ignore evidence that their behavior is inconsistent with the past,” says Professor Van Bavel, an expert on the “partisan brain.” 

“Under conditions of polarization there is a strong pressure to follow the leader,” Mr. Van Bavel says. “This is especially true for people who have authoritarian tendencies. They loyally follow the leader and pressure others to follow the leader as well.” 

Positions on issues – except for abortion – almost become secondary. “Everything is seen through the lens of how you view Trump,” says Republican pollster David Winston. 

That explains how the president has been able to bend Republicans to new positions on tariffs, foreign policy, rising debt and deficits, and immigration. Amid polarization, there’s little room for dissent.

“Trump is partly a cause and partly a consequence of polarization,” says Mr. Van Bavel. “He was voted into office by the overwhelming support of Republicans, in part because many of them did not want to support a Democrat.”

“Once in office, Trump has been aggressively partisan in many of his actions,” he continues. “This has ensured that he maintains the fierce support of Republicans, even as it undercuts any potential support he might obtain from Democrats or independents. We are in a vicious cycle of hyperpartisanship that is self-reinforcing.”

Nirut “Nick” Chomngam drops to his knees before a large monocled cobra. The snake raises its head and spreads its hood in warning.

A quick, well-aimed bite could land the Thai wildlife expert in trouble, but Mr. Nirut isn’t bothered. He slowly reaches out and touches the snake on the top of its head. The cobra doesn’t flinch.

“Snakes may look expressionless, but you can read their moods,” Mr. Nirut later explains.

If the cobra fixed its gaze on him and started flicking its tongue rapidly, that would indicate it was getting agitated. If it began hissing and pulled its head back, it would be ready to strike.

This cobra isn’t doing any of that. Next, Mr. Nirut lifts it up by the tip of its tail. Holding it gently, he allows the serpent plenty of wiggle room, and it swivels around inquisitively in his hand. Mr. Nirut’s cameraman zooms in for a lingering close-up.

It’s a wrap.

The footage, shot in a rural area outside Bangkok, will be showcased on Mr. Nirut’s YouTube channel where he has close to 900,000 subscribers. His nearly 300 Thai-language videos have garnered more than 140 million views, and counting, in a country of 69 million.

Mr. Nirut’s hands-on dealings with dangerous snakes may appear like the kinds of stunts Thai serpent handlers perform at “snake farms” for the benefit of gawking tourists. Yet he has a loftier aim than mere entertainment.

Dressed in his trademark black polo shirt, khaki cargo pants, and sturdy hiking boots, Mr. Nirut has been traveling around Thailand at his own expense to teach rangers, wildlife officials, and villagers about the country’s myriad snakes. Using slides, videos, and live animals, he explains how to tell species apart, how to avoid being bitten, and what to do if you get bitten.

“Most Thai people are terrified of snakes, but if they see me handle dangerous snakes safely, they can learn to understand these fascinating animals,” he says.

In each case, education is his mission. “Snakes are marvels of nature. They’re very important to the health of ecosystems, so we should protect them,” he says.

Crawling with 200 species

A change in people’s attitude should benefit snakes in Thailand, where more than 200 species are native to tropical wetlands, grasslands, forests, and seas. Of those, fewer than a third are venomous (about three times as many as in North America). Many Thais prefer not to risk it, though, and kill any snake on sight.

“Once I came across a snake and clubbed it to death,” attests Supachok Chumpet, who lives in Bangkok. “Later, I watched Nick’s videos and realized I shouldn’t have,” he adds. “I regret killing it.”

Many Thais have no choice but to coexist with snakes. In Bangkok alone, there are nearly 40,000 recorded home invasions by snakes each year. Thailand’s sprawling capital has been built on marshy ground that was home to countless slithering reptiles.

Although deprived of their natural habitat by encroaching development, the snakes have never left. They continue to inhabit patches of greenery, especially around the city’s many canals.

And many of them venture into gardens and houses for food and shelter. When that happens, panicked residents call fire departments for help. Pinyo Pukpinyo, a firefighter who specializes in catching snakes, answers up to 10 calls a day.

“Most people live next to snakes, whether they like it or not,” says Mr. Pinyo, who is stationed in a suburban area. “They don’t give any thought to snakes until one is in the house,” he adds. “Then they frantically try to find out on Google what kind of snake it is and call us to come and get it.”

Mr. Nirut regularly joins Mr. Pinyo in training sessions for Bangkok’s firefighters. “He’s spreading knowledge about snakes online,” the fireman observes. “Before Nick came along, snakes’ fate was to be killed instantly. Now, thanks to his videos, they have more of a fighting chance.”

Even those tasked with protecting snakes often can’t tell a deadly cobra from a nonvenomous rat snake. “Many wildlife rangers don’t know about snakes,” says Mr. Nirut, who worked part time as a ranger in a national park in central Thailand until six years ago, when he began making wildlife documentaries. “Their job is to protect wild animals, including snakes,” he notes. “Instead, they kill snakes out of fear.”

A YouTube star

Owing to his informative and engaging videos, Mr. Nirut has become a YouTube star in his homeland. He’s seeking to emulate his idol, the late Australian animal expert Steve Irwin, with his endeavors.

His boyish good looks and affable mien have added to his popular appeal. “In Thailand no one has done what he’s doing,” says Aganid Yankomut, a biologist who has accompanied Mr. Nirut on some of his field trips. “He’s especially popular with women,” she chuckles.

He’s certainly popular with Preeyaporn Wongsatiam, who lives in a northern province where snakes are plentiful. “I like every single video he makes,” she says. “I’ve learned a lot from them. If a snake comes to my house, now I know what to do.”

That includes staying calm, identifying the snake, and calling an expert snake catcher if need be.

Mr. Nirut has never been bitten himself – except on purpose. He once coaxed a nonvenomous sunbeam snake into biting him on a finger. He did so for a video in which he sought to dispel a widely shared misconception that the snake, which is common in Thailand, is highly venomous.

“Not even venomous snakes like cobras and vipers will trouble you unless you trouble them first so they feel threatened,” he says. “I want people to stop harming snakes and learn to coexist with them.”

His mission hasn’t always been a walk in the park, so to speak. Last year he contracted a severe lung infection during a weeklong stay in a forest in southern Thailand. “It hasn’t been easy for me, traveling around the country and spending a lot of time in forests,” he concedes. “But I want to help people, and I want to help snakes.”

Mr. Nirut’s videos are helping change attitudes, says Montri Sumontha, a herpetologist who works for Thailand’s Department of Fisheries. “Thai people have many false beliefs about snakes, which adds to their fear of them,” he says. Some locals believe that king cobras can magically appear and disappear; others think certain herbs planted around houses will keep snakes away.

“In Nick’s videos,” says Mr. Montri, “people can see with their own eyes how false such beliefs are.”

AP

Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, left, and the Sudan Liberation Movement-North leader, Abdel-Aziz al-Hilu, hold up their hands in Kauda, Nuba Mountains, Jan. 9.

In a country once known for genocide, Islamic dictatorship, and terrorism, Sudan is busy these days trying to be a model of peacemaking. Last week, for example, its new civilian prime minister, Abdalla Hamdok, was in Darfur trying to end that region’s violent tribal conflicts. Yesterday, he led a peace mission to the Nuba Mountains, a rebel stronghold for more than three decades, “to end the suffering of our people in these areas.”

“This is the start of the new Sudan,” he told The Associated Press. “Together, we will make miracles.”

Sudan, which is Africa’s third largest country, is in the midst of a democratic revolution, the result of a nationwide uprising a year ago that led to the ouster – and later conviction for corruption – of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir. An interim ruling council, which includes still-distrusted military figures, promises democratic elections in 2022. Yet that goal is hardly achievable without peace across a divided land of 40 million people.

Mr. Hamdok, who holds a Ph.D. in economics, took office in August and quickly set an ambitious target of negotiating “comprehensive” peace agreements with five armed movements by mid-February. Last September, all groups signed on to a “Declaration of Principles” that lays out a pathway for talks. So far, with the help of Western countries as well as Ethiopia and South Sudan, most of the negotiations are largely on track.

The reason, claims Mr. Hamdok, is that the armed groups are responding positively to his promised “pillars” for peace. These include economic growth, better security, accountability for human rights abuses, uplift of marginalized groups, and a focus on root causes for conflict, such as land grabs and religious repression.

“You have here a change that is peaceful, that will give hope to that region of the world,” he told NPR last month.

Reversing the destructive policies of the Bashir dictatorship will not come easy. Mr. Bashir himself, along with many of his former colleagues in the armed forces, must still be tried for alleged atrocities in Darfur and elsewhere. And Sudan’s economy is weighed down by $60 billion in debt. 

Yet Hamdok says his first priority is spreading a culture of peace, bringing reformers and rebels together. Only then, after shaping a common Sudanese identity, can the country’s democratic revolution be complete.