The government recently expressed the hope that the US legal system would show flexibility in the case of three Taiwanese executives barred from leaving the US, where they face price-fixing charges. While the show of support for the company and its executives was predictable, the Ma administration would do better to focus on its own shortcomings if it hopes to make a convincing argument before a US court.
In June, AU Optronics, a Texas subsidiary and six executives were indicted by the US Department of Justice, along with six other Asian flat-panel firms, on charges of conspiring to fix prices over a five-year period. The six other companies pleaded guilty in plea-bargain deals, including two Taiwanese firms, one South Korean and three Japanese. Nine executives received prison terms ranging from nine to 14 months.
AU Optronics has steadfastly denied the accusations. Chief executive Chen Lai-juh (陳來助), vice chairman Chen Hsuan-bin (陳炫彬) and former board member and executive vice president Hui Hsiung (熊暉) went to the US last month to contest the charges. They were to be released on US$10 million bail after both the company and Taiwan’s government guaranteed they would continue to appear in court. However, prosecutors cited the lack of an extradition treaty between the US and Taiwan in arguing that the men posed a flight risk. The court agreed and on Aug. 19 it ordered the trio to surrender their passports.
There has been widespread outrage in Taiwan, especially in business and government circles, over the court’s action, with mutterings about presumption of innocence and onerous hardships for both the men and the company, since a trial could be months away, not to mention of many months’ duration.
It is easy to understand the US prosecutors’ position. It’s harder to muster support for the government’s outrage, given the number of cases in Taiwan where a court has slapped a travel ban on a suspect, only for them to mysteriously slip out of the country unhindered.
Look at the number of relatively anonymous white-collar suspects under travel bans who have managed to escape over the years, while former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), one of the best-known faces in the nation — who would have presumably had a much harder time getting into an airport without notice, much less out of one — has been kept in detention almost continually since his arrest because he is considered a flight risk (or might try to destroy evidence).
Where are former legislative speaker Liu Sung-fan (劉松藩), former Rebar Asia Pacific Group chairman Wang You-theng (王又曾) and former Kaohsiung City councilor Chu An-hsiung (朱安雄) now, to name but a few of the more prominent fugitives from Taiwan’s judicial system?
AU Optronics and its executives should be presumed innocent. However, the main obstacle to the trio being free to return home pending trial is the lack of an extradition treaty. The Taiwan-US Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement does not cover the extradition of suspects or convicted criminals. While the decision of Chen Lai-juh, Chen Hsuan-bin and Hui Hsiung to go to the US last month to face the charges shows an admirable willingness to argue their innocence, it is understandable that Taiwan’s assurances that they would return to the US for future court appearances would be treated with skepticism.
Given that the legal system in Taiwan has proved incapable of keeping many of its own high-profile defendants — or convicted criminals — from evading justice, how can the government seriously expect to convince courts in other nations this time will be different? What if it was not AU Optronics’ guarantees that failed to sway the court in California, but the Ma administration’s lack of credibility?
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS