Regarding Bonnie Glaser's article ("Is a Chen-Hu Summit Desirable?" June 16, page 8), it is for the most part an uninspired rehash of the aspirations of business leaders on all sides to see an increase in commerce between Taiwan and China as so-called "initial steps" to "build trust" as a prelude to some resolution of the cross-strait situation.
Glaser suggests promoting economic ties as a means of defusing tensions. Of course, from a unificationist's standpoint, that is a good strategy. In fact, it is the preferred method of ensuring unification, as further entangling economic ties will make independence down the road that much more difficult, if not impossible.
The trouble with Glaser's approach, and the approach of a myriad other dreamers who hope earnestly for Taiwan to simply disappear into communist China's bosom, ending cross-strait tensions, and opening the way for exploitation without limit of China's vast untapped markets, is that the approach assumes the final solution will be unification.
That, of course, is dead wrong. No negotiation can ever take place in good faith if one party says "I won't talk to you unless you agree to my position in advance." That is, and has been communist China's position regarding talking to President Chen Shui-bian (
Communist dictatorships don't take chances on negotiations (or elections, or much else). Hong Kong is a good example. Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang (
To ensure victory in Tibet, China kidnapped the Panchen Lama, and replaced him with a communist puppet. To assure itself of support in countering Taiwan independence (including decidedly anti-democratic proclamations from French President Jacques Chirac), China has used economic blackmail against just about every country on earth, including the US. This being the case, Hu will never sit down with Chen in an unscripted discussion or negotiation. Only when the cards are in its favor, and China is assured of Taiwan's capture, will that happen.
As for Glaser's concluding comments, they are a despicable example of the lengths to which CSIS will go to promote China, despite it being a communist dictatorship. In her conclusion, Glaser suggests the US would love to see Taiwan unify with China, and that Washington "would welcome the elimination of the danger of a war in which it is likely to be involved, and in which US interests would almost certainly be adversely affected." This suggestion is wishful and abhorrent thinking, and is decidedly not Washington's current (or historical) thinking.
Glaser blithely expresses her high hopes for the demise of freedom for 23 million Taiwanese (there is no other possible outcome from "unification," to wit Hong Kong's farcical attempt at so-called "democracy"), as if she were describing ordering a salad.
I suggest that she should live as a communist for a while before suggesting that an entire nation, its history, culture, language, economy, democracy and children surrender to the single most brutal communist dictatorship in human history. Her views, and the views of CSIS, do not represent the majority view in the US, in particular the views of this writer.
I deplore the notion that my country would be willing to sacrifice Taiwan for a good night's sleep. That Glaser casually suggests this is true, and moreover, desirable, is morally reprehensible and indefensible.
Lee Long-hwa
United States
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS