The decision by the administration of US President Barack Obama to approve the sale of an additional package of arms to Taiwan comes just in the nick of time. It does show a realization on the part of the US administration that Taiwan should not be left to fend for itself, but needs both support and encouragement from the US.
For too long, the people of Taiwan have had the impression that the US was too busy with issues elsewhere in the world — Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran — to be concerned with Taiwan’s drift toward China’s sphere of influence. The arms sale has changed that: It is a signal that the US will stand by its commitments under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and may help defend Taiwan.
Having said that, we may want to ask if the signal is strong enough? This depends on how much further the Obama administration is willing to go. Will it keep the door open to further packages such as the 66 F-16C/D jet fighters requested by Taipei in 2006 or the submarines that have been under discussion since at least 2001? And there might be other items required to redress the increasing imbalance in air and naval power across the Taiwan Strait. In particular, is there anything that has truly addressed the imbalance of missiles across the Strait? It is essential that the US works with Taiwan on these issues.
The announcement of the sale also comes at a time of increasing belligerence and recalcitrance by Beijing on a wide array of issues: the sentencing of human rights activist Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) — author of Charter 08 — to 11 years in prison; the blocking of a meaningful accord at the global warming conference in Copenhagen; the refusal to agree on sanctions against Iran; the harsh crackdowns in Tibet and East Turkestan; cyber terrorism against Google and other Western companies and even government offices.
These developments are prompting a fundamental reassessment among Western governments and companies on the nature of engagement with China. The assumption behind US and European policy toward China until now has been that economic opening would lead to political liberalization. This basic premise seems increasingly less tenable: What we see is the rise of China — both economically and politically — accompanied with increasing authoritarianism at home and a willingness to throw its weight around in support of unsavory regimes and causes.
The Obama administration needs to stand firm on the basic principles of human rights and democracy. These cannot be whittled away in exchange for expediency in getting China to move a few inches on issues such as Iran or North Korea.
Against this background, it is also essential that Taiwan clearly shows it wants to remain a free and democratic nation and wants to strengthen its ties with the democratic West instead of moving into the sphere of influence of an undemocratic and repressive China. All too often, economic and business interests push a government in the direction of narrow and short-term gains. Taiwan’s government needs to keep a longer-term vision of a free and democratic Taiwan in mind.
It also needs to be emphasized that peace and stability in the Strait can only be achieved if Taiwan maintains strong political, economic and social ties with the many democratic countries, especially its neighbors, and keeps a healthy distance from China.
The new arms sale by the Obama administration is a good beginning to help make this possible.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,