President George W. Bush's abbreviated transition period was supposed to lead to all kinds of dire difficulties even in an America that has gone through the process many times. It may still be too early to make a judgement, but so far, after only two weeks in office, he has done remarkably well. Before comparisons between the turnover in two countries -- the US and Taiwan -- become widespread, giving some thought to the questions still to be answered in Washington, and the differences in the situation faced by the two new governments might be useful.
Bush's strategy is becoming clearer with each passing day. He faced a Congress that was for all practical purposes equally divided and therefore required some Democratic support to get legislation passed. He faced some important elements of that opposition who felt very deeply that their constituencies had been discriminated against. He faced having to acknowledge that an important element -- the "far right" or ultra-conservative constituency -- of his own party needed to be recognized (even if he did not agree with some of their agenda). It was a formidable challenge.
He chose a sort of "soft-assertive" strategy. He did so in his choice of Cabinet -- well-known individuals, experienced in both government and the private sector, and diverse in the constituencies they represented. After inauguration, he followed almost immediately with a proposed bill on education that except for one element was just as immediately endorsed by both sides in the Congress. Even the exception -- vouchers for private school education under some circumstances -- he made clear was open to negotiation.
The move demonstrated that he would pursue his campaign promises, but in a manner that respected the concerns of the opposition. He made similar moves with decisions on greater support for subsidized medicine for the elderly under the Medicare program and support under certain circumstances for faith-based welfare organizations. The former was close to what the Democrats wanted and the latter what conservative Republicans wanted. Both, he again made clear, were open to negotiation.
He has, in addition, called introductory meetings with members of Congress, including members from both parties, and even with those most opposed to his election.
Up to this point it has been a pretty smooth transfer of power. But then, in comparing this to Taiwan's, the very different circumstances in the two countries have to be taken into account. Bush was elected the 43rd president. Even if the newly elected president had represented the same party as his predecessor, the transfer was never going to be easy. But this is also the 21st time that there has been a change in the party taking executive power in the US. Not that there is much institutional memory on how this is done. Circumstances associated with any election are always different. But some traditions inevitably are established, and that does make a difference.
A difference that particularly intrigued me was pointed out by a Taiwan legislator attending this year's inauguration in Washington. The swearing in ceremony, as always, took place outside the Capitol building, not the White House. It is meant to signify that the president was voted by and belongs to the people, he said. In Taiwan the ceremony has always been conducted in front of the Presidential Palace.
But the differences go far beyond symbolism, of course. For Taiwan this is the first real turnover of government from one party to another. There are laws and regulations, but few traditions -- yet. Since party and government have only recently been clearly separated, there were very few with government experience in the incoming party to whom the president could turn or appoint to high positions. So both tradition and experience in governance are two fundamental differences in the two turnovers. Very significantly, so are the differences in the two constitutions.
As in Taipei, however, the verdict on how well the turnover will be seen has still not been reached in Washington. Uncertainties about the economy are always in the background. Bush's luck seems to be holding out in this regard for the time being. He will clearly have much greater support for his tax cut proposal, given both the increased surplus anticipated and the slowdown in the economy. But how severe the slowdown will be and for how long, will have much to do with how strong his government will be.
There is also the yet unexplained hiatus in naming sub-Cabinet officials. As Secretary of State Colin Powell joked to State Department personnel, he couldn't get too deep into details because he's the only one around. No deputy, no undersecretaries, no assistant secretaries have been named. One hopes this explains why his testimony before a Senate committee last week included language regarding Taiwan that has not been used before. "The US has long acknowledged the view that there is only one China. In that respect, Taiwan is part of China. How the PRC and Taiwan resolve the difference in interpretation of that view is up to them ...." And again, "We expect and demand a peaceful settlement, one acceptable to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait." The ambiguity persists, but each time there is a change in wording, it begs for yet another quest for clarity.
The role of the vice-president is also attracting much comment. Dick Cheney is apparently building a large staff that includes experts on several domestic issues as well as on security and some foreign policy issues. Unlike in the past, these staff are being integrated with those of the president. The media is making much of the fact that Cheney has said he does not want to be president. This is seen as being very important and evidence that he has no personal political ambitions. His role is only to support the president. This is surprising, since a vice-president, like any other human, can change his mind.
But this is just the beginning. I believe we will find this government more and more interesting. For eight years government appeared from our television screens to consist only of Bill Clinton. There will be many more players now.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views in this article are his own.
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
RSS