Judging from the reaction in the media, WTO members were "taken aback," "shocked" and "angered" last week when Taiwan -- or, as it is so inconveniently called at the trade body, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) -- announced it would block the appointment of a Chinese judge to the Appellate Body.
The "surprise decision" by Taipei to question the impartiality of Zhang Yuejiao (
Though the move may be seen as an annoyance by other WTO members who would rather continue with business as usual, for Taipei it is of an almost existential pitch, as it concerns the very future of its trade relations. Excluded from almost every other international organization and having seen Chinese or Beijing-friendly individuals assume high positions in bodies such as the UN and the WHO, Taipei has every reason to dread the high-level appointment of a potential Beijing minder in yet another international organization.
Seeing that its efforts to isolate Taiwan by political and military means have failed to break the nation's back -- and that it may in fact have consolidated the ranks of those who oppose annexation -- through the WTO Beijing could now turn to the one weapon that, above any other, threatens the survival of Taiwan: its economy.
As Taiwan tries to find a new role for itself in a transforming world economy -- a process that will involve moving into highly contentious business sectors that are characterized by a great amount of litigation -- success will largely be contingent upon impartiality at the WTO court. If that body is allowed to lean in Beijing's favor or to be used as a means to hold Taiwan hostage, Taipei's strategy for the development of its trade sector will be compromised and its detractors will once again be in a position to use the state of the economy as an argument against the central government.
The problem is not with Zhang per se, whose credentials have yet to be ascertained, but rather the numerous precedents set by Beijing in other international organizations, as well as the type of pressure that it can bring to bear. Even as they engage in multilateralism, authoritarian regimes have difficulty shedding their old reflexes, meaning that Zhang -- just like WHO chief Margaret Chan (
Beijing has deftly played its cards in recent years, so much so that its threat to Taiwan has become far more insidious than the blunt possibility of military invasion. Pressured by the international community into joining international organizations as a "responsible stakeholder," Beijing has successfully exploited the opportunities that multilateralism has created to turn Taiwan into an outcast. With the proper people in place, the WTO could very well be the latest step in that plan.
In light of all this, inconvenient and "shocking" though it may be for other WTO members, Taiwan's reaction was the proper one. It cannot afford to lower its guard as it tries to protect its interests at this most important body. The stakes are simply too high.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming