Putting the US first is what US presidents do. Post-war US presidents have consistently interpreted this as cultivating, and claiming stewardship of, an international order of peace and stability that creates conditions amenable to the furtherance of US interests. There is concern that US President Donald Trump has a narrower, less nuanced, more direct understanding of what putting the US first means, but it is impossible to tell.
On Friday, Trump gave his inaugural address.
“From this moment on, it’s going to be America first,” he said, making international trade and foreign relations integral to his theme.
This “decree,” he said, is to be heard “in every city, in every foreign capital and in every hall of power.”
Governments worldwide have been put on notice and were surely listening — many in anxious anticipation — over concerns that Trump’s business instincts would leave former allies abandoned or — as with Taiwan — as dealmaking fodder.
At a dinner celebrating 80 years of diplomacy at Twin Oaks in Washington on Wednesday last week, Taiwan’s Representative to the US Stanley Kao (高碩泰) said that the relationship between the two nations had “never been better in recent memory,” albeit with a “quiet and low-key” engagement. The Taiwanese government would like the momentum to remain intact, although the relationship “should be based on its merit and not used … as some kind of bargaining chip,” he said.
Former premier Yu Shyi-kun (游錫堃) — in Washington at the head of a Taiwanese delegation for the inauguration — asked Washington-based Heritage Foundation founder Edwin Feulner whether he thought Trump might sell Taiwan out.
Feulner said that the US’ Taiwan Relations Act would prevent him from doing so and that even if he wanted to, he would have to get past US Congress first.
The idea that the US could abandon Taiwan if it were in the US’ interest was mooted in 2011 by Charles Glaser of the Elliott School’s Institute for Security and Conflict Studies. The idea received short shrift in Congress and yet Trump’s address also signaled his willingness to distance himself from the policies of both parties.
However, there is reason for optimism. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is known to be well-disposed toward Taiwan.
Trump also said in his address that: “We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world,” and “reinforce old alliances.”
Kao said Taiwan intends to ensure that Taiwan-US relations remain sustainable and predictable. Unfortunately, it takes two to tango. Nobody is sure what Trump’s foreign policy goals are, or how well thought out his ideas might be.
How important is it for the US to protect Taiwan from China, whether it be for the sake of democracy in Asia, a valuable trading partner, the maintenance of the first island chain or of the US’ soft power influence in Asia?
Trump’s opening salvo on abandoning the “one China” policy is not the only threat he is throwing Beijing’s way — he has also made much of a possible 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods that could well trigger a trade war that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) would be keen to avoid. There are no winners in war, only casualties, and Xi would also have to contend with increased economic problems that such a conflict would cause. The distraction this would create might even benefit Taiwan.
Nevertheless, concerns have been voiced over whether Trump’s approach to foreign affairs and security might actually benefit China, which is being more assertive in Asia, and even challenge the US-led international order maintained by his predecessors. Will Trump decide to cash in the Taiwan “bargaining chip”? The government will have to make him understand why it would not be in the US’ best interests to do so.
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