Doing the right thing
US President Barack Obama recently met the Dalai Lama with the knowledge that China would lodge strong protests against the meeting. In a statement, the White House said that, in the meeting, Obama had “underscored the importance of the protection of human rights of Tibetans in China.” Obama highlighted a core value of the US constitution. In spite of the expected reaction from China, Obama stood firm — he did the right thing.
Doing the right thing to protect core values such as human rights, freedom and democracy has made the US a beacon of hope for millions of oppressed people around the world. That is how the US has remained a great nation through the past two centuries. Unfortunately, in recent years, the US has not sought to do the right thing by Taiwan.
By all measures, Taiwan is an independent political entity. Taiwan’s 23 million people enjoy political freedom in a functioning democracy that respects human rights. They also benefit from a robust market economy that provides one of the highest standards of living in Asia.
The US has a very complex relationship with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and managing this relationship is no easy task. However, the relationship is made more complicated whenever the US steps away from its own clear path — which is based on its own core values — in order to accommodate the PRC’s demands. When the US steps away from its clear path, it steps into a minefield.
Externally, the credibility of the US comes into question when friends and allies see it deviating from its values. Internally, US policymakers end up making inconsistent decisions that are confusing to its friends: Instead of making policy based on a set of clear core values, they are making decisions based on the concerns of a foreign power.
For example, for three decades the US has been providing Taiwan with the military capabilities to defend itself against PRC coercion or attack. It has been doing this because Taiwan shares its core values. With the help of the US’ tutorage and influence, Taiwan has become a shining example of how democracy can work in a Confucian society.
However, in the past few years the US has stalled the sale of badly needed F-16C/Ds to Taiwan because of its concerns over the PRC’s reaction. Some in the US have gone so far as to reiterate the PRC’s proclamation that the sale of the F-16C/Ds is a “red line.”
It is bad policy to allow another country to control US freedom of action. If the US accepts the provision of F-16C/Ds as a PRC “red line,” what happens when the PRC declares that the presence of US ships in the South China Sea is a “red line?”
That “red line” will come so long as the US continues to allow the PRC to set “red lines.” How much freedom of action is the US willing to surrender before it has to take drastic action to regain it?
Certainly there are true “red lines” that touch on China’s core interests. Most China experts agree that a declaration of independence or the development of nuclear weapons by Taiwan would be two true “red lines” to the PRC, while the US’ provision of defensive arms to Taiwan is not.
The policymakers in the US should recognize that providing Taiwan with self-defensive capabilities until a peaceful resolution of the differences across the Taiwan Strait is reached is in the interests of the US. It not only demonstrates to the world that the US still stands behinds its core values, it also, more importantly, demonstrates to the world that the US still does the right thing.
C.T. HU
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry