US President Joe Biden and former US president Donald Trump did not touch on the issue of security in the Taiwan Strait during their presidential debate on Thursday last week, and they only mentioned China-related issues briefly.
That these issues were not the main focus of the debate does not mean they do not believe it is important to protect Taiwan and resist China. Rather, it shows that there is a consensus between the two major US parties on China and Taiwan, so there is no need to waste time on topics already agreed upon.
On the eve of the debate, the Washington Post invited 21 columnists to raise “21 questions for the next president that have no easy answers,” covering domestic and foreign affairs, and trade — including whether to dispatch troops in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Biden has said five times that he would assist in the defense of Taiwan, while Trump also said in May that the US would “bomb Beijing” if China invades Taiwan by force. In terms of resisting China, there is not much difference between the two sides, but only a difference in the degree of toughness.
The debate over the policy response to Russia’s war in Ukraine reflects the two candidates’ governance styles. Trump said that he was the only US president in decades who “didn’t have any wars” during his presidency, and that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine was due to Biden’s weakness.
However, Trump repeatedly boasted that he wants to end the war within a day, while holding unrealistic fantasies about Russia. He might pressure Kiev to make concessions and insist that NATO allies pay more — like a gang that tries to extort protection money — thus casting uncertainties on the US’ transatlantic partnerships.
On the other hand, Biden said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible for war crimes and that other European countries were the next target of Putin’s ambition to restore the Soviet empire. Even under the constraints of the Republican-dominated US Congress, the Biden administration has insisted on providing Ukraine with US arms and financial assistance, which is relatively reassuring in terms of policy consistency.
Apart from the presidential campaign, the post-election personnel changes and policy changes are another major concern for countries worldwide, and the appointment of the president-elect’s top national security team would influence the direction of his policy.
In March last year, former US national security adviser Robert O’Brien of the Trump administration led a delegation to Taiwan to accept a special honorary medal from then-president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). O’Brien is regarded as one of the strongest candidates to be the US secretary of state if Trump returns to the White House. Not long ago in the authoritative Foreign Affairs magazine, O’Brien published an article titled “The Return of Peace Through Strength: Making the Case for Trump’s Foreign Policy,” which is regarded as a preview of a second Trump administration’s foreign policy.
As O’Brien wrote in the article, if you want peace, you must prepare for war. He made a series of specific proposals that have never been seen before, such as complete decoupling from China’s economy, reinforcing the US military’s deployment of the elite Marine Corps in Asia, resuming underground nuclear testing and inviting Taiwan to participate in the Rim of the Pacific Exercises.
O’Brien’s harder stance makes it clear that no matter who is the next US president, the Washington consensus of resisting China would only grow stronger.
Chen Yung-chang is a manager.
Translated by Eddy Chang
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had