Who would we prefer to win the US presidential election? If it seems presumptuous on our part to state a preference, let us point out that Taiwan has owed its security, and as a result its economic miracle and resultant prosperity, to a US military shield put in place five decades ago by President Harry Truman. The maintenance of that shield is Taiwan's most vital strategic interest. And yet the robust US response to China's "missile diplomacy" in 1996 has not proved reassuring.
The problem is that whereas China's missile intimidation was a foolish piece of military adventurism, it was an extraordinarily fruitful piece of diplomacy. Having nearly wrecked its relationship with the US, something on which its economy was and is utterly dependent, nevertheless it was the US which was forced to pay a price for putting relations back on track -- which means having the right to sign agreements with China that Beijing has no intention of keeping. This was achieved in the form of Bill Clinton giving voice to the "three no's" on his visit to China in 1998, which shifted the US position from passively tolerating to supporting China's claim to Taiwan.
Any American might ask, of course, why defending Taiwan is in their national interest. Surely a better relationship with a nuclear-armed China has to take priority. A question to which Taiwanese have few answers except the obvious one of pointing out that after decades of exhortation they have evolved into exactly the kind of healthy democracy that the US wants to spread around the world, and it would do that project little good to make the kind of society that Taiwan has become expendable to appease the despots in Beijing. Appeasement doesn't work.
Which of the two US candidates is more likely to remember this when China gets rough? Frankly, we can't tell. Al Gore has all the dubious baggage of association with the Clinton regime and its toadying to China -- all the more ironic since cuddling up to the butchers in Beijing was a useful weapon in Governor Clinton's arsenal against George W. Bush's father back in 1992. But then that father's influence over George W. is likely to make itself felt, especially in foreign policy, something that hardly bodes well for Taiwan either.
Both candidates were reported in Taiwan media yesterday as giving their support to the "one China" doctrine. Gore has said that he would make sure Taiwan had the means to defend itself and would take any threat to Taiwan as a serious threat to the region. Bush has said that the US would not help Taiwan in any conflict if it was provoked by Taiwan, but in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, would not stand idly by if China were to start a war with Taiwan.
Taken at face value, Gore seems to be the better bet if he keeps his promise about weapons. After all, getting the US to stop supplying Taiwan with arms is the primary goal of China's current Taiwan policy. And Bush's remarks about conflict "provoked by Taiwan" are chilling, seeming, as they do, to preclude any further manifestation by Taiwan of its independent sovereignty.
Either candidate, should he become president, has, however, more to think about than policy toward Taiwan, which means day-to-day the topic will fall into the hands of that permanent foreign policy establishment that rotates between the think tanks, academia and government service and which has, for so long, spoken with a resolutely pro-China pro-appeasement, anti-Taiwan, anti-democratic stance. This of course means a kind of malign neglect of Taiwan until the next crisis. And then, who will come down harder? Who knows? And God willing, let us hope we do not have to find out.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US