On FRIDAY, US president-elect Donald Trump broke another long-standing diplomatic protocol by speaking directly on the telephone with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). This event is likely to spark speculations about the Trump administration’s possible policy orientation with respect to cross-strait relations.
In the process, it has also undoubtedly created some excitement among Taiwanese and foreign supporters of Taiwan. However, it would be prudent for Taiwanese to adopt a more sober-minded attitude toward this recent development in US-Taiwan relations.
According to the Taipei Times, the telephone call between Tsai and Trump was arranged by Edwin Fuelner, the founder of the Heritage Foundation and an adviser to Trump. The Taipei Times also reported that Stephen Yates, a former national security aide to former US vice president Dick Cheney and a long-time advocate of strong ties between Taiwan and the US, is scheduled to visit Taiwan and is being considered for a job in Trump’s White House.
If this report is true, it is understandable for Taiwanese to be optimistic about Taiwan’s ties with a Trump administration. However, having someone friendly to Taiwan in the White House has not always been indicative of a US administration’s foreign policy orientation, especially when it comes to Taiwan and China.
Indeed, it is useful to recall that early in his administration, former US president George W. Bush stated that his administration, in which Yates served, would do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan from military attacks by China. However, after the US embarked on a global war against terrorism, the Bush administration found it necessary to cooperate with China, which had its own alleged terrorism problem, namely Uighur nationalism in Xinjiang Province.
According to veteran journalist Bob Woodward, in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, even before Sept. 11, 2001, Bush dispatched Brent Scowcroft, a former national security advisor to former US president George H.W. Bush, on a secret mission to China to clarify his remark and repair whatever damages to US-China relations might have been caused by the above-mentioned remark.
This incident demonstrates that incoming US presidents are often unable or unwilling to follow through on their rhetoric when it comes to major foreign policy issue areas such as US-China relations. In this respect, given that the US and China have shared interests in numerous global issue areas, such as denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, it is unlikely that the Trump administration will intentionally harm ties with China.
It is also important to be reminded that Trump’s telephone call with Tsai was not the first time that he has failed to adhere to diplomatic protocols since he was elected last month. There has been plenty of news coverage about his willingness to meet or call foreign leaders without involving the US Department of State. Before his telephone call with Tsai, Trump created an uproar by speaking on the telephone with Pakistan’s prime minister.
After the telephone call, Trump reportedly praised the Pakistani prime minister and Pakistan, with which the US has had a difficult relationship. In light of this recent history, Trump’s telephone call to Tsai might carry less policy significance than speculated.
There is another reason to be cautious about being carried away by this latest development in Taiwan-US relations and this factor might not bode well for Taiwan.
According to the Guardian, a few weeks before the telephone call, a Trump Organization representative arrived in Taiwan to inquire about investing a new development project at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.
Already, experts have raised concerns about Trump’s potential mixing of his responsibilities as the president of the US and his business interests. If Trump does not effectively separate his private business dealings from his duties as US president, there is a very real possibility that his foreign policy will be “transactional” in nature. If that were the case, then it is not inconceivable that the Trump administration might eventually adopt policies and practices that harm its relations with Taiwan when China, which is a much larger and thus more attractive market, is willing to do more to serve the interests of Trump’s business empire.
Furthermore, Trump’s diplomatic activities thus far display a pattern of personal independence that adds a strong element of unpredictability to his administration’s foreign policy positions, even if a friend of Taiwan such as Yates is installed as a senior policy adviser.
In any case, there are enduring issues in Taiwan-US relations that will not be removed by one telephone call. The US continues to raise concerns about Taiwan’s unwillingness to further open its domestic market, which has long centered on the US meat industry’s small share of the Taiwan meat market due in large part to the Taiwan government’s 11-year import ban on US meat, which was slightly eased only last year.
The US has also worried about Taiwan’s sovereignty claims in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. In addition, there are many people in Washington who remain disturbed by Taiwan’s apparent lack of resolve to bolster its national defense. These and other issues will require extensive bilateral negotiations and consultations.
It is likely that there will be considerable volatility in terms of US policy toward Taiwan for the reasons cited above.
Meanwhile, there are serious domestic issues that Tsai must address, such as weak wage growth, brain drain and serious energy challenges.
In this context, it is in the interest of Taiwanese and their leaders to focus on adopting a long-term, strategic vision that clearly identifies Taiwan’s domestic and foreign policy requirements and laying out a plan to meet those needs. Such vision and plan should help Taiwan navigate through potentially choppy waters in Taiwan-US relations, thereby allowing Taiwan to more effectively present itself as a valuable partner to the US and, in the process, become more proactive in determining its future.
One phone call will not necessarily make or break Taiwan-US relations, but it can be utilized as a foundation on which Taiwan can build its future. Taiwanese and their leaders must take advantage of this fortuitous beginning to go beyond rhetoric and take real action that will enhance Taiwan-US relations and ensure Taiwan’s prosperity.
John W. Tai is a professorial lecturer at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Relations, where he has taught a course on Taiwan’s political development and foreign relations since 2014.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US