A media interview can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it gives politicians a chance to explain their views; on the other hand, it can sometimes backfire and have the opposite effect. President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) interview with Reuters on Thursday has turned out to be an example of the latter.
This was not due to any mistake by Tsai; instead, it was Reuters’ doing. There was nothing inappropriate or wrong in Tsai’s responses to the reporters’ questions. Always cautious, Tsai gave appropriate and concrete answers to their questions. She was forthcoming and direct, and displayed the views and bearing becoming of a president.
She was not overbearing on the issue of relations between Taiwan, the US and China, and she gave voice to a Taiwanese identity without deliberately fawning on either the US or China. In short, her behavior was presidential and praiseworthy.
The problem was the reporters’ hypothetical line of questioning.
For example, the reporters asked Tsai: “Will you hold further conversations with [US] President [Donald] Trump? Are you expecting to?”
“We are of course hoping that we will have the opportunity to communicate directly with the US government at critical moments and on critical issues, and do not rule out the opportunity for another telephone conversation with President Trump himself, but this will be dependent on the overall situation and on the US government’s concerns when it comes to handling the affairs of this region,” Tsai said.
This is both a balanced and relevant answer.
However, the headline Reuters gave the report was: “Exclusive: Taiwan president says phone call with Trump can take place again,” and a Reuters reporter immediately asked Trump if he would call Tsai again.
Trump, unaware of the interview with Tsai, brushed the question aside and said that he was addressing the North Korea issue with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), and that he did not want to irritate Beijing with any other issues.
Trump’s response was reasonable: North Korea is the issue that the US most urgently needs to resolve and it needs China’s help to do so.
Another question posed by Reuters was: “Will you directly rule out purchasing F-35 jets?”
“Our military purchases will be directed by our defense strategy needs, and we don’t rule out any item that would be meaningful to our strategy. The F-35 is indeed one such item,” Tsai said.
A Reuters reporter directly asked Trump whether the US would sell F-35s to Taiwan, since Taiwan wants to buy them. Trump said that he had not been notified, that he needed to think about it and that he had to confer with his team.
Reuters’ handling of the report gave the impression that Tsai had suggested that a second telephone conversation with Trump should be organized, and that Trump had rejected the suggestion. However, the Chinese transcript of the interview on the Presidential Office’s Web site shows that Tsai only responded to the Reuters reporter’s question by saying that it would depend on the US government’s considerations, and that there were currently no such plans on either side.
The purchase of F-35 jets is also a hypothetical issue that lacks any substance.
Reuters had a great opportunity to interview Tsai, and several important issues were discussed during the interview. Too bad that all the good points have been drowned out by the furor over two non-issues.
Small wonder, then, that Reuters officials have told the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that they “feel embarrassed” over the whole issue.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers