In a statement that came as a shock to many, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday announced the immediate annulment of all “self-imposed” guidelines on US executive relations with Taiwan, which he said Washington took “unilaterally, in an attempt to appease the Communist regime in Beijing.”
It could be the most sweeping advancement in Taiwan-US ties in decades. No longer would officials need to meet in “private meeting rooms or restaurants,” or avoid references to a Taiwanese country or government. High-level personnel could attend official events, including Double Ten National Day celebrations.
Coverage of the decision has been predictably alarmist, pre-empting a backlash from Beijing. Many commentators have reduced it to a parting blow by US President Donald Trump’s administration to “box in” US president-elect Joe Biden and his team, as they prepare to move into the White House on Wednesday next week.
Yet Pompeo’s move was not as unprecedented as it seems, nor is it a death knell for Biden’s China policy. While malicious intent is certainly possible, it does not preclude the good that could come of it. It was only the latest step on a long, unidirectional path to closer ties, with the past few years featuring the longest strides.
The decision was an extension of a directive already laid out in the Taiwan Assurance Act, passed late last year with bipartisan support, instructing the US Department of State to review and reissue its guidelines on Taiwan. Before that, the Taiwan Travel Act of 2018 called for high-level reciprocal visits. Even before Trump, US policy toward Taiwan had been trending in a singular direction with consecutive arms sales, the Taiwan Policy Act of 2013 and other moves.
US public opinion is also shifting. A Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey in October last year showed record support for US defense of Taiwan at 41 percent. This was alongside plummeting positive views toward China, with the council’s “feeling thermometer” hitting a low of 32 out of 100. A majority of Americans at 55 percent view the rise of China as a “critical threat” to the US.
Caught by this rising tide, Biden and his team have intensified their rhetoric. After the Trump campaign earlier this year aired an ad saying that Biden “stands up for China,” the Biden campaign answered in kind, airing an ad featuring sound bites of Trump praising China that were “straight out of China’s propaganda playbook.” Biden has called Beijing’s actions in Xinjiang “genocide,” and has promised to lead a global effort to “pressure, isolate and punish China.”
The Biden administration will try to maintain a balance between staying strong on China and allowing room for cooperation “on issues where our interests converge,” such as climate change and global health security. As the leader of a party containing a large coalition of interests, Biden would have less latitude to make dramatic changes. With Pompeo’s team making the “strong” moves on their way out, the Biden administration could simply continue in that direction without having to take the first steps — or the blame that goes with it.
Faced with two options — continuing Trump-era policies and risk angering Beijing or rolling them back and appearing ineffective on a rare bipartisan issue — the choice is clear. China would continue to cry foul at every perceived slight, and has shown no intention of reversing its policies to reward a more amiable White House. The US can look to its own failed history of engagement, championed by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, as advice against a soft touch.
If the administration rolls back Trump-era policies, it could also risk politicizing the issue, making it even harder to achieve the kind of nuanced approach Biden desires.
While sudden and seismic, the parting changes from Pompeo should be viewed as an opportunity to keep pushing toward the direction favored by the US government and people alike.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
On Sunday, elite free solo climber Alex Honnold — famous worldwide for scaling sheer rock faces without ropes — climbed Taipei 101, once the world’s tallest building and still the most recognizable symbol of Taiwan’s modern identity. Widespread media coverage not only promoted Taiwan, but also saw the Republic of China (ROC) flag fluttering beside the building, breaking through China’s political constraints on Taiwan. That visual impact did not happen by accident. Credit belongs to Taipei 101 chairwoman Janet Chia (賈永婕), who reportedly took the extra step of replacing surrounding flags with the ROC flag ahead of the climb. Just
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS