During a gathering of Asians and Americans in Honolulu, the Asians seemed ambivalent about the role of the US in their region. As one put it, "We want the Americans to be on tap but not on top."
Most of the Asians, who came from the vast triangle bounded by South Korea,Australia, and Pakistan, wanted a strong American diplomatic and military presence, lucrative ties with the US in trade and investment, and swift disaster relief -- but without being overshadowed by US power.
A point of friction arose over defining an Islamic connection with terror. Asians and Americans agreed that not all Muslims were terrorists but that almost all terrorists today were Muslims. When an American suggested, however, that moderate Muslim leaders had failed to take a stand against terror, a Muslim retorted: "Muslim leaders are not taking sides. Why should they?"
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
The Asian and American government officials, diplomats, military officers, and scholars were here to attend the Senior Policy Seminar at the East-West Center, a research and educational institute. To encourage candor, the seminar organizers asked that speakers not be identified, except those who spoke in a public luncheon session.
The Bush administration got mixed reviews on its policies and performance in Asia. Criticism of its conduct of Asian policy, although expressed with civility, was in contrast to a more favorable verdict on America that ran through a similar conference arranged six weeks ago in Honolulu by the National Defense University in Washington.
In that meeting, Australians, Singaporeans, and Japanese asserted that an alliance with the US, whether formal or informal, was vital to their national security and should be enhanced. Malaysians and Indonesians, citizens of predominately Islamic nations, urged the US to pay more attention to them even though many Muslims are anti-American.
At the East-West Center, Asia was described as the world's most dangerous region because tensions between North Korea and South Korea, China and Taiwan, and India and Pakistan made it the only place, as an American put it, "where there was a potential for great power conflict."
Generally, the Bush administration got good marks for its operating style in Asia. "You are not overbearing, you are not overwhelming, you are not over-imposing," said a Southeast Asian. A South Asian applauded the administration for paying more attention to that region and especially for improving relations with India, South Asia's most influential nation.
On the other hand, Asian and American critics of the administration contended that it was preoccupied with Iraq, the war on terror, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and was thus giving insufficient attention to Asia. Moreover, they said the administration was still oriented toward Europe and caught up in a Cold War mentality.
Washington was not coping with the rise of China, the most significant development in Asia, even though several Americans said it was atop the administration's foreign policy agenda. That Congress was increasingly hostile to China and the Pentagon exaggerated China's military buildup were other complaints.
Several Asians were worried about the deep ideological divide they sensed in America. They lamented confusion arising from different voices coming from different departments of government. One criticized Washington's annual human rights report for not including a review of violations in the US
The discord over the Muslim connection with terror surfaced in the public session. The US ambassador to Thailand, Ralph Boyce, said: "We need to be careful of terminology," he said. "Essentially, we are talking about criminals." He hoped that moderate tendencies of Islam would reassert themselves.
Several minutes later, Surin Pitsuwan, a Muslim from southern Thailand and member of parliament, asserted that most terrorists are a "group of misguided individuals who happen to be Muslims." He urged that the adjectives "Muslim" and "Islamic" be left out of references to terrorists.
Surin, a former foreign minister, said Americans were anxious about how to deal with the Muslim world and contended that "force alone, with superior technology, would not solve the problem." He said the US could launch missiles from hundreds of miles away and hit a target precisely. With missiles, he said, however, "you don't feel the human pain."
Not mentioned was the pain of nearly 3,000 Americans killed in the terrorist assaults of Sept. 11, nor the victims of terrorist bombings in London and Madrid, nor the uncounted numbers of innocent Iraqi women and children who have been murdered by terrorists in Baghdad as they shopped for food or walked their children to school.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
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
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS