There are rumblings that comments at last week's press conference by American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young have endangered the passage of the arms procurement bill.
Whatever the motivations of those who ordered Young to give Taipei his ultimatum, there are a few unsettling truths that need to be aired.
There are those in the US who believe in Taiwan and believe in its freedom, and these people work hard to convince the military, the executive and Congress that Taiwan is worth supporting and, if necessary, fighting for.
Then there are those who think that Taiwan is expendable. They think Taiwanese are a jumped-up bunch of Chinese who cannot be trusted to run a democracy, let alone to defend themselves from the Chinese juggernaut. To them, Taiwan endangers good relations with China and industry and is simply not worth the trouble -- despite the fact that Taiwan's democracy grew under US protection.
There is a strong case to be made, therefore, that Young was ordered by his superiors to ignite the pan-blue camp's deep anti-Americanism so that the procurement bill would be scuttled -- providing ammunition to pro-China forces in the US of the "unwillingness" of Taiwan to defend itself.
Whatever the truth of the matter, a clash between pro-Taiwan interests in the US and the pan-blue camp was inevitable because pan-blue contempt toward the US has always nestled very close to the surface. Never mind that the pan-blue elite are US-educated; the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a long and inglorious history of relying on US funding, education, technical know-how and military support, then denying its own incompetence and its debt to the American people and labeling the US "colonialist" for presuming to defend Taiwan against Chinese dictatorship.
What Washington has to understand is that KMT hypocrisy and carpetbagging do not represent the sentiments of the average Taiwanese, nor even the sentiments of the average KMT supporter. Taiwanese politics is polarized, but Taiwanese themselves maintain a civilized polity that is worth standing up for. The other option is to condemn Taiwan to the care of a regime that a draft US-China Economic and Security Review Commission report has described as a country unlikely to be willing to act as a responsible world power.
With US support apparently on the wane, it is crucial that Taiwan's executive take harder action in defending this country's institutions from Chinese interference and espionage.
So to the key question: Just what is the National Security Bureau doing to protect this country?
We know, for example, that the bureau spends resources on dossiers for Taiwan-based foreigners who write on local issues, and congratulations are due to the bureau for compiling such scintillating data for the next generation of historians.
But when it comes to the activities of legislators and leaders of political parties who cut deals with Beijing to spite the elected government of the day, there is no response. No retaliation. Whatever illegality that exists goes unpunished.
The bureau should make public its intelligence on which legislators are communicating with Beijing in a way that threatens the national security -- and then have them prosecuted. It is high time that legislators who receive inducements or funding from the Chinese be held to public and judicial account.
The bureau may be intimidated by the politicization of public institutions, but that is no excuse for inaction. With the sun apparently setting on US commitment to Taiwanese freedom, what is the point of having a National Security Bureau if it doesn't protect the national security?
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
Astride an ascended economy and military, with global influence nearing biblical proportions, Xi Jinping (習近平) — general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People’s Republic of China — is faithfully heralded, in deeds and imagery, as a benevolent lord, determined to “build a community of common destiny for all mankind.” Rather than leading humanity to this Shangri-La through inspirational virtue a la Mahatma Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln, the CCP prefers a micromanagement doctrine of socialism with Chinese characteristics as the guiding light. A doctrine of Marxist orthodoxy transplanted under a canvas
On Sept. 8, at the high-profile Ketagalan security forum, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) urged countries to deal with the China challenge. She said: “It is time for like-minded countries, and democratic friends in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, to discuss a framework to generate sustained and concerted efforts to maintain a strategic order that deters unilateral aggressive actions.” The “Taiwan model” to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic provides an alternative to China’s authoritarian way of handling it. Taiwan’s response to the health crisis has made it evident that countries across the world have much to learn from Taiwan’s best practices and if