It is difficult to understand how one person can put so many misconceptions and distortions into one essay as John Copper did (“Could US policy abandon Taiwan?” May 11, page 8).
Copper has been around for some time, but from his vantage point in Memphis, Tennessee, he does not have the foggiest idea of how Washington works and what people in the US capital think. In a highly irresponsible manner he weaves a tale of misconstructions and outright falsehoods.
For example, he wrote that in 2009, during a meeting with Chinese leaders in Beijing, US President Barack Obama concurred that Taiwan is in China’s “core interest.”
Beijing’s leaders may want us to believe that, but the Obama administration specifically emphasized after the meeting that it did not “concur” on that point.
It is also a falsehood to state that the US Department of State “doesn’t like Taiwan and would not mind giving it to China.”
The US State Department is a professional organization run by people skilled in diplomacy and is not given to primitive knee-jerk reactions, as ascribed to it by Copper.
Then Copper turns his wild-eyed “analysis” to the US Congress and asserts that it is preoccupied elsewhere and that the “Taiwan issue” does not resonate with new congressional members.
Yes, the US Congress is presently quite busy with budget issues and all that, but both the unofficial representation of the Taiwanese government and the Taiwanese-American community ensure that it remains abreast of developments so that when the time comes, Congress will be on the right side of history.
One also has to wonder how many new members of the US Congress Copper has communicated with. Or is this yet another one of his wild assumptions? Just citing the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is not a measure for the depth of support for Taiwan in the US legislature.
What are the reasons why the US should support Taiwan?
First and foremost, Taiwan is a democracy, and a rather young one at that. It was only 20 years ago that Taiwanese — with a little help from the US — brought about a momentous transition to democracy. If the US wants democracy to prevail in East Asia, it had better stand by its allies.
Second, Taiwan matters economically and technologically. Most of the information technology gadgets, such as iPhones, iPads and so on, are designed in Taiwan. The country plays the same role in the -information-technology industry as Saudi Arabia in the oil industry. If it were absorbed by China, there would be a gaping hole in the international industrial supply chain with unforeseen consequences.
Third, because of its location Taiwan is of strategic importance, not only to the US, but also to Japan and South Korea: More than 85 percent of the oil for those two countries comes through the Taiwan Strait, which is still an open sea lane. If Taiwan was to be unified with China, Japan and South Korea would become very nervous.
For all these reasons, the US will continue its policy of support for Taiwan, ensuring — as stated in the TRA — that there will be a peaceful resolution and that the US will help maintain peace, security and stability in the Western-Pacific region, so Taiwanese can decide their future freely without interference from an authoritarian China.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a -Washington-based publication.
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
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
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS