With unseemly haste, the government announced yesterday that Taiwan had not received any US request to send marines to Iraq. Nor, it added, had it any intention of doing so.
We cannot help but think that this addition was unfortunate. Of course we can understand why it was given: Iraq is a hornets' nest that nobody in their right mind wants to go anywhere near.
Anglo-American intervention in that country was illegal under international law and has proved to be a disaster in which an ugly but relatively powerless regime, posing no threat to anyone except its own people, has been replaced by a terrorists' playground with the potential to set the entire Middle East aflame.
Why would Taiwan want any part of this? As one commentator said to this newspaper on Saturday night, "What Taiwanese soldier, or soldier's family, is going to support troops being sent to Iraq after seeing the horror of the Berg video?" This comment probably reflects mainstream opinion.
There also is concern that Taiwan might -- almost certainly would, in fact -- become a terrorist target. We have seen how al-Qaeda likes to nibble at the edge of the occupying coalition. They might not be able to push the US or the British out, but an atrocity here and there can deter the bit-part players, as we saw from the Madrid train bombing. Probably the Poles or the Japanese will be next. Does Taiwan, where security is a joke -- March 19 surely taught us that much -- want to find itself in this coalition of the vulnerable?
The interesting thing about such prudential considerations is that while they are perfectly sensible, indeed compelling, as far as any individual Taiwanese goes, they do not necessarily represent the national interest.
It might seem contradictory to suggest that something might be bad for Taiwanese but good for Taiwan, but nations have to have a longer view than the immediate self-interest of their citizens. Indeed, leadership is often about persuading people to take the difficult but ultimately more fruitful option.
So why should Taiwan help out in Iraq? Why should it, at the very least, refrain from closing out a US request before it is even made? Simply because Taiwan owes its existence as an independent polity to US intervention and subsequent US support.
To a very great degree, Taiwan and its people are able to make plans for the future because of the Taiwan Relations Act. Surely it ill becomes them to shelter under this umbrella without being willing to offer their most powerful ally something in return. Peaceniks might riposte that Taiwan is willing to offer money and expertise. To which we can only say that it is not money or expertise that America needs, but boots on the ground.
We are further baffled by the government spokesman's remark yesterday that "to send troops to Iraq would mean raising our military ties with the US to the level of a quasi-military alliance. We have no such plans now." But isn't this kind of military relationship exactly what Taiwan has long wanted?
And here is another consideration: US President George W. Bush, whatever might be thought of his wider foreign policy, has been a good friend to Taiwan. Almost certainly John Kerry will be no such thing. Those who remember the Clinton administration's Taiwan policy have to view a Democrat in the White House with alarm.
Furthermore, whoever wins in November, the Iraq quagmire has surely blunted America's appetite for foreign adventures for some time to come. Such factors are likely to result in a weakening of resolve in keeping China at bay.
So when Taiwan has to call on US help, it would be in its interest to be able to call in a very large favor.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs