In December 2003, US President George W. Bush publicly scorned President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) at a press conference by saying that "comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose."
Since then, the US has used every occasion to shovel into the brains of many voters in Taiwan the idea that there is a "status quo" which needs to be maintained at all cost. But the truth of the matter is, in life, there is no such thing as a status quo.
It was with some amusement and also amazement that I watched Stephen Young lecturing during his press conference on the "change" that is supposed to be coming in 2008 (thus making this fall the critical time at which to pass the arms budget).
But if we are to hold on to the alleged status quo, isn't "change" itself a contradiction of this concept?
In recent years, the US has been saying to Taiwanese voters not to fight nor irritate China. But now, it seems that Young is telling us to do the exact opposite and fight our neighbor.
I hope US policymakers will soon realize how inconsistent and misleading their messages from the past few years have been to the Taiwanese voters.
The US should also bear in mind that Taiwanese voters are just like everybody else the world over, in that they are not good at reading the minds of rhetorically sophisticated foreign politicians. The message, therefore, has to be clear and easy for them to understand.
I also hope that Young will work to repair the damage that former AIT director Douglas Paal has made to the Taiwan-US lines of communication. There is certainly a huge disconnect between the US and Taiwanese voters, whose votes made the pan-blue camp the controlling majority in the nation's politics.
The biggest mistake the US has made is to look at Taiwan as an afterthought to its dealings with China, resulting in Washington never making a clear effort to elaborate a Taiwan policy. How can one expect success in any matter without putting in real efforts?
What the US needs is a consistent and user-friendly Taiwan policy.
Sing Young
Taoyuan City
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS