The main duty of our government's representative to Washington is supposed to be to elaborate and defend Taiwan's policies to the US government, on Capitol Hill, in the State Department and in the White House. What we saw three days ago, however, was Stephen Chen (
Chen clearly is not capable of carrying out the task, set out above, he has been assigned and should be replaced immediately. And for his insubordination to the president he should be summarily sacked. But even so these actions will only deal with a symptom, it will not cure the disease that besets Taiwan's diplomatic culture, namely that it is populated by people who learned their craft under a regime with vastly different ideas and goals, and who have largely proved unable or unwilling to understand the very different country that has evolved over the last decade, and who are now passing on their outdated views to yet another generation of would-be diplomats.
How can we expect people so deeply versed in the ideology of Chinese nationalism to be eloquent and persuasive spokesmen for the kind of "Taiwan first-ism" advocated by Lee? Clearly an overhaul is needed in three areas: recruitment, training and promotion. People have to be recruited with a mindset more in tune with what Taiwan currently is and what it strives to be, rather than on the basis of their mastery of Chinese nationalist orthodoxy. They need to be trained along similar lines. But most of all, the current practice of assignment and promotion on the basis of seniority needs to give way to one in which the top posts go to those who are most eloquent and persuasive in defending Taiwan's interests.
Stephen Chen is a dire example of why this is necessary. As a veteran diplomat with a conservative personality, Chen is incapable of understanding the background for Lee's "two states" declaration, and cannot explain the reasons behind such a policy adjustment to Washington. Lee's redefinition of cross-strait relations is of course nothing more than stating the truth, a truth that has to be recognized before meaningful negotiation with China can happen. Chen, so deeply versed in "one China" ideology, cannot accept or defend this, which means that Taiwan's top diplomatic official to the US cannot do his job.
The US and Japan are the most important countries to Taiwan and it is absurd to appoint representatives to these countries on the basis of past political services rendered or seniority inside the diplomatic service. In this regard, Lee should bear some responsibility for not recruiting the best candidates to fill those crucial positions.
But the method of recruitment to the foreign service needs radical change. Taiwan is a small and vulnerable nation, which cannot afford to depend on isolationist, self-centered conservative thinking.
But Taiwan's foreign policy goals need changing also. It should not be obsessed with its competition for allies with China. Rather, precisely because Taiwan has very limited resources to count on, it should explore a variety of channels to intensively open new areas of contact outside of the international mainstream.
To do this, Taiwan needs people with a variety of different backgrounds in its diplomatic service. Professional diplomats with a single unified training and old-fashioned ideology cannot catch up with more creative thinking.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with