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.
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,
RSS