It is hard not to feel bad for China Airlines (CAL) these days -- with such great responsibility resting on its shoulders. Not only it is CAL's duty -- apparently -- ?to defend the honor and integrity of this country in the wake of the controversies surrounding Vice President Annette Lu's (
Now, according to the European Commission, even Taiwan's precious relationship with the entire EU may be jeopardized as a result of CAL's recent decision to purchase aircraft engines from General Electric (GE) of the US, instead of from Britain's Rolls-Royce.
The European Commission is even threatening to lodge a complaint against Taiwan with the WTO for what it says is a violation of the Plurilateral Agreement On Trade in Civil Aircraft (PATCA). Under that agreement, purchasers of aircraft are supposed to make decisions purely on commercial and technical factors -- not political considerations.
That is certainly a most lofty ideal. But, except in very few cases where one bid is clearly better or worse than other bids, it is very difficult to prove whether other considerations played a role in the decision-making process.
The question then becomes "Why is the European Commission making the threat when proving its case will be at best difficult?" In this regard, both CAL and government officials have no one to blame but themselves for creating the impression that "the kid who knows how to throw a temper tantrum will get the lollipops."
In this case, it seems the US got the lollipops.
The most obvious example is CAL's decision last year to split its purchase order for new commercial jets. It initially leaned toward purchasing from the European maker Airbus, but then ended up ordering some of the aircraft from Boeing after the US government expressed its "concerns."
Comments made at the time by government officials served only to reinforce the impression that the noisy kid got the lollipops after Daddy intervened.
Now, following the Boeing fiasco in Seattle, the Ministry of Transportation has asked CAL to "review" its contract with Boeing as a result of that most-unfortunate incident. Just think what kind of impression is being created about the factors that come into play when CAL makes purchase decisions?
Then there is, of course, the puzzling question of why the European Commission had no concerns about the factors that came into play in CAL's decision last year to purchase 12 Airbus jets and only six Boeing jets. Does this mean that CAL's decision-making process is partial and unfair only when it does not favor European manufacturers?
One also cannot help but wonder, since it's wrong to make purchase decisions based on political consideration, why is it OK to politically pressure and sway such decisions of the politically weak countries and their firms?
The purchasing countries are for all practical purposes victims. It is common knowledge that many governments openly lobby for the business interests of their domestic firms. So why punish the country that gives in to political pressure but not the country that applies the pressure? This is like punishing only the prostitutes but not their customers.
Moreover, it is common knowledge that many foreign powers mix politics with business in their own procurement bids. Just look at the way business and political interests from all sides competed for their slice of the pie in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Taiwan's real sin is being wealthy and yet politically powerless -- making it especially vulnerable to political pressure. The sad thing is that certain foreign powers know only too well about how to prey on this vulnerability.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers