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
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have twice blocked President William Lai’s (賴清德) special defense budget bill in the Procedure Committee, preventing it from entering discussion or review. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) proposed amendments that would enable lawmakers to use budgets for their assistants at their own discretion — with no requirement for receipts, staff registers, upper or lower headcount limits, or usage restrictions — prompting protest from legislative assistants. After the new legislature convened in February, the KMT joined forces with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and, leveraging their slim majority, introduced bills that undermine the Constitution, disrupt constitutional
RSS