Evidence shows that the US government failed to live up to repeated public statements that it would remain neutral in the Jan. 14 presidential election.
First, in September last year, right after Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) met with US National Security Council and State Department officials, including US Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides and US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Kurt Cambell, in Washington, the Financial Times reported an unidentified senior official as saying that Tsai had left US President Barack Obama’s administration with “distinct concerns” about her ability to maintain stability in the Taiwan Strait. The US Department of State immediately made known publicly that this was not the administration’s view.
The unidentified official has subsequently been identified by observers in the US and Taiwan as a White House official, and, this official’s talking to Financial Times has been interpreted by some as an attempt to scupper Tsai’s presidential campaign.
Later developments have also shown that the US did exercise its enormous influence to affect the outcome of the election.
Former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) director Douglas Paal wrote an opinion piece on Jan. 11, titled “Taiwan Election has the US and China on Edge,” for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he is vice president for studies.
In this piece, he said, “To reinforce its policy preference, the Obama administration has successfully approved a US$45.852 billion arms sales package for Taiwan … arranged visits by American officials of five agencies at increasingly high levels that had not been seen in more than a decade, and signaled its intention to admit Taiwan to the valued visa waiver program next year — all in advance of the election.”
The AIT’s announcement last month that the visa waiver program was nearing approval was an especially valuable gift to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in the run-up to the election.
However, the role Paal played a few days before the election is most controversial. In the above-mentioned article he wrote, “When Tsai was in the US last September, she suggested vaguely that the four-month interregnum should give Americans some room to see that she will handle things smoothly.”
“It was this vagueness, however, that prompted administration officials’ doubt and did not reassure them. Subsequently, officials let it be known widely, but anonymously, that on the basis of what she had to say, they lacked confidence in her ability to manage cross-strait relations effectively,” he added.
Apparently not content with having expressed his view in writing, he flew to Taiwan knowing full well that the presidential election “appeared to be tight.”
On the evening of Jan. 12, Paal talked to a local TV station suggesting that Washington was unhappy with Tsai and her tougher approach to dealing with China. He further made it clear that both Washington and Beijing would breathe “a huge sigh of relief” if Ma were re-elected.
Paal thus rattled Taiwan before the election, according to a New York Times report on Jan. 13.
The same report also said that Frank Murkowski, the former Republican senator from Alaska who was leading a delegation of election observers in Taiwan, called Paal’s remarks “careless,” “irresponsible” and “inexcusable” in a press conference and accused Paal of deliberately trying to aid Ma’s campaign.
Despite claiming that he did not speak for the US government, Taiwanese newspapers nevertheless stressed that Paal was a former de facto US ambassador to Taiwan. Taiwanese voters thus perceived that Paal spoke for the US State Department.
Although he said that he spoke “when I’m asked to give my opinion,” I would say he went to Taiwan not so much to observe the election as to make a difference to its outcome.
Now that Ma has won re-election, it is hard for people to believe the US government did not appreciate Paal’s efforts to make a difference.
Although there is no way of knowing to what extent the US intervention affected the election result, the damage was done. In the eyes of many freedom-loving people, it is clear that the intervention has also tainted the US’ long-cherished reputation for fostering democracy.
Chen Ching-chih is a professor emeritus of history at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS