US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China.
Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said.
This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
It is hard to predict how Trump would handle China-related issues in his upcoming term. He has been aggressive on the issue of trade with China, signing off on technology export bans and imposing tariffs on Chinese imports. However, in Monday’s interview Trump spoke favorably of TikTok, even with a potential ban on the app looming, and said he had spoken with Xi within the three days prior to the interview.
Trump’s noncommittal take on Taiwan’s defense might cause some analysts in Taipei to worry, but his comments are not necessarily cause for concern. Washington’s official position on Taiwan did not change under Biden, despite Biden’s strong remarks.
After Biden in May 2022 answered affirmatively in an interview to the question of whether he would send troops to defend Taiwan, the White House said: “Our one China policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait of course remains,” adding that the US’ commitment to Taiwan involved meeting its “military needs to defend itself.”
Nevertheless, developments involving the US military over the past two years suggest that the US is preparing itself for possible involvement in a conflict in the Taiwan Strait — something that Japan’s Kyodo news agency confirmed in a report on Nov. 24.
In February last year, the US signed a deal with Manila providing it with access to four more bases in the Philippines, one of which is in the Batanes, less than 200km from Pingtung County. Taiwan has also confirmed the presence of US Marines in Taiwan assisting with training on various occasions, including reports of training on Pratas Island (Dongsha Islands, 東沙群島) in September and in waters off Kaohsiung on Friday last week. US Marines have also conducted amphibious drills on Ishigaki Island — one of the closest Japanese islands to Taiwan.
One cause for concern in Taiwan has been Trump’s position on US involvement in foreign conflicts. Trump has called for scaling back the presence of US troops in various parts of the world. He said last week that the US should not be involved in Syria, which on Monday saw the ousting of the al-Assad family by rebel forces after 50 years in power. Trump has also called for a ceasefire in Ukraine and has threatened a US withdrawal from NATO.
There are concerns that Trump would abandon Taiwan in the event of a conflict with China. However, just as Europeans are concerned about the fall of Ukraine to Russia, Taiwan’s neighbors, like Japan and South Korea, would also have much to be concerned about if Taiwan fell to China. The consequences of such a scenario would be disastrous for the US, as it would signal to regional allies that the US is an unreliable defense partner. The US could find itself ousted from Okinawa, thereby creating a power vacuum that might see China expand further.
The US Congress would likely urge Trump to support US involvement in a Taiwan-China conflict, and Trump would be hard-pressed to object to such involvement. Should it wish to, Congress could also exercise its power to declare war on its own, as described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.
While Trump has vowed to rein in spending, and to scale back the foreign engagements of the US military, a Taiwan-China conflict is not something the US military could afford to sit out — and Trump’s advisers would likely make this clear to him, if they have not done so already.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS