President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) on Tuesday participated in a video conference with three Washington-based think tanks — the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Brookings Institution and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars — as part of an event marking the 40th anniversary of the US’ Taiwan Relations Act.
National Security Council Secretary-General David Lee (李大維) and Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) joined Tsai, while questions were asked by former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, who served as the conference moderator; former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Richard Bush, now with Brookings; Abraham Denmark, director of the Wilson’s Asia Program; and Bonnie Glaser, the director CSIS’ China Power Project.
Tsai spoke of Taiwan’s progress over the past four decades, noting how the nation had transformed from a net recipient of aid to a high-tech powerhouse and a vibrant democracy.
She spoke of the shared values of the US and Taiwan, how their economic ties were complementary, not competitive, and of how the government is now seeking a bilateral free-trade agreement with the US.
She spoke of Taiwan’s “critical role in the heart of the first island chain,” and of how Taiwan was a force for good in the world, noting that the previous century has taught the world that “the forward march of democracy is not a given.”
She also spoke of the government’s plans to contribute to improving governance and training in Southeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific region, and how its New Southbound Policy could complement Washington’s “free and open Indo-Pacific” strategy.
In an oblique reference to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), she rejected the idea that Taiwan’s values “can — or should — be dictated by economic carrots and sticks, particularly by authoritarian governments.”
Her government wants to protect religious freedom throughout the world, “because no one deserves to be punished or ‘re-educated’ for his or her own faith,” she said, in a clear reference to the CCP’s activities in China’s Xinjiang region.
She then went on to explicitly criticize the CCP for its increasing provocations, suppression and threats toward Taiwan: not because of her administration, but because it genuinely believes “the people of Taiwan do not have an independent right to participate in global affairs.”
Tsai used a teleprompter, and her answers to the prepared, softball questions were all scripted, giving her talk an overly stage-managed effect.
Who was the intended audience of these proceedings? Was it Beijing: with a cautionary reminder of continued — and increasingly vocal — US support for Taiwan? Beijing needs no reminding of this.
Was it the US administration? Not likely, for it is very aware of how valuable Taiwan remains to its interests.
Was it staff from the think tanks? No, this was no exchange of ideas, nor was it a fact-finding exercise to gain insights into what the president is thinking.
Was it a domestic audience in Taiwan? No. Wrong forum.
The audience was the wider international community. The conference was a welcome platform for Taiwan to present its case, despite the CCP’s best efforts to deny it a presence at international events. For that opportunity, thank you to the three think tanks, while Tsai’s team did a good job.
However, it was perhaps a little unfortunate that the whole affair came across as so staid. Tsai is not known for the passion of her oratory, and the issues at hand certainly merit more.
Lee and Wu could have also contributed to the debate, dealing with far more challenging questions than the ones that were asked.
A more frank and engaging, open and authentic conversation at the conference would have served its purposes far better.
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