US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has a big mouth, and she has put her foot in it many times over the years. She did it again last month when she dismissed the need to push Taiwan issues during her maiden voyage to Beijing as the US’ top diplomat.
Speaking to reporters in Seoul just before she flew to China, Clinton made it clear that Taiwan, along with Tibet and China’s human rights violations generally, would be lost in the shuffle as she and Chinese leaders talked about other things.
She would not press China on Taiwan and the other areas of disagreement between Washington and Beijing because “we pretty much know what they’re going to say,” she told the reporters traveling with her around East Asia.
“We know what they’re going to say because I’ve had those conversations for more than a decade with Chinese leaders, and we know what they’re going to say about Taiwan and military sales, and they know what we’re going to say,” she said.
Underscoring the point, she asserted that “pressing on those issues can’t interfere with” the other items on her agenda: the global financial crisis, environmental issues, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea.
It is true that all of those other issues are make-or-break crises for the US, China and the rest of the world and deserve priority. No question about that.
But ask people in Taiwan whether they feel that their welfare, their future, their security and their health are matters that merely “interfere” with the US’ other concerns.
It may be true that Clinton has spoken with Chinese leaders over the past decade. But in what capacity? As a senator from New York? As a former first lady?
It is one thing to talk to them as a representative of Brooklyn and Buffalo, but it is quite another to speak as the top foreign policy representative of the US and its president.
Former secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell also knew what China would say about Taiwan during their meetings, but they never dismissed Taiwan’s interests and security publicly because of that. To do so, they well knew, would be interpreted by the Chinese leaders as signals of backsliding on Taiwan, which could be used in Beijing’s propaganda against Taipei.
But Clinton does not have either of her predecessors’ experience or gravitas. She is, after all, a politician who is a novice at the international diplomacy game. She was chosen by US President Barack Obama as much for her political clout, especially among women’s groups, as for her global issues skills.
We are told by sources with insights into the State Department’s East Asia bureau that after she uttered her remarks and they were reported in the media, Clinton immediately realized that she screwed up, to borrow Obama’s expression. She did not mean to belittle Taiwan or leave Taiwan to the wolves, department officials have said to others.
She did not mean “Who cares?” about Taiwan, Tibet or human rights, they said. They added that her comments were parallel to her statements during the trip that economic sanctions against the repressive Myanmar regime have not worked and that a new approach is needed.
What such a new approach would mean in terms of Taiwan is not at all clear.
Nobody in Washington expected any new developments on the Taiwan issue during Clinton’s trip. So many Taiwan supporters in Washington were not particularly disheartened by Clinton’s offhand remarks on Taiwan.
“The US will always be there for Taiwan,” one of Taiwan’s leading supporters in Washington said this week.
Clinton’s trip neither “alleviated nor added to” the concerns over Taiwan policy in the Obama administration, he said.
Observers say there will be no return to the Taiwan policy of Clinton’s husband and former president, Bill, many of whose policies were distasteful to Taiwanese as he pushed to improve relations with China amid strained cross-strait relations.
But Obama’s administration is piled high with former Clinton administration Asia policy stalwarts, who presumably hold much the same ideas they did when they helped establish that earlier policy. One would hope that they have matured since then.
Taiwan and the world have yet to see what the current president, and the current State Department under Clinton, have on their plate as they decide on actions crucial to the fate of Taiwan and its people. Stay tuned.
Charles Snyder is the former Washington correspondent for the Taipei Times.
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
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
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
RSS