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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS