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.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did