US President Donald Trump is an extremely stable genius. Within his first month of presidency, he proposed to annex Canada and take military action to control the Panama Canal, renamed the Gulf of Mexico, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a dictator and blamed him for the Russian invasion. He has managed to offend many leaders on the planet Earth at warp speed.
Demanding that Europe step up its own defense, the Trump administration has threatened to pull US troops from the continent. Accusing Taiwan of stealing the US’ semiconductor business, it intends to impose heavy tariffs on integrated circuit chips or demand that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) increase investments in the US and initiate tech transfers to Intel. This transactional approach, unconstrained by norms, morality, or conventional wisdom, is unpredictable and considerably undependable.
Trump is a tough negotiator. These could be his ways of getting what he wants. Democratic countries, accustomed to value-based instead of transaction-based leadership, are preparing for the worst, but hoping for a win-win scenario, which would only come by working together with mutual respect and through innovative alternatives instead of my way or your way.
Adjusting policies in this uncertain time, Canada has begun to replace Russia in supplying energy to Europe, which appears to be a win-win higher way.
Zelenskiy, a courageous and strong leader facing a most difficult war, has offered to resign as president in exchange for Ukraine’s NATO membership. Fighting in the front line for the democratic and free world with 80,000 killed and 400,000 wounded, Ukraine deserves unconditional support from all countries.
Inasmuch as the conventional wisdom to punish the aggressors for them to pay for war crimes and destruction, it is hard to ignore that imperialism has not gone away into history books when the US asks for Ukraine’s mineral rights.
However, in the reality of the transactional paradigm, if Ukraine offers US the right of first refusal to buy up to 50 percent of its rare earth minerals at fair market prices in exchange for the US’ security guarantee, that could be a win-win.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has over the past few days also suggested bringing Moscow back to the Western camp, which would undoubtedly be rejected. After all, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
However, if Putin is willing to resign and allow Russia to become democratic in whole or in pieces, it could be another win-win.
TSMC dominates global high-end chip supply and US investors hold a majority of its shares.
Imposing heavy tariffs on chips would add inflationary pressure on electronic goods and hurt most of the magnificent-seven US companies, not to mention the artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructures during this AI revolution.
Making sure TSMC can continue running a prosperous business would only be a win-win for Taiwan and the US.
TSMC is fully supported by the dedicated talent in Taiwan, which is why it excels. It has also benefited from the free trade of crucial technologies among democratic countries, which need to unite to rid the world of dictators.
Protecting Taiwan’s sovereignty is crucial to secure TSMC’s chips for the free world, as its supply chain is firmly established in Taiwan. In this regard, President William (賴清德) has promised to purchase more military inventory from the US by increasing defense spending to more than 3 percent of GDP — higher than the 2.71 percent of NATO countries.
As Lai said: “Taiwan-US cooperation will create a shared win-win outcome.”
When the transactional paradigm delivers win-win deals to make thriving economy and peaceful resolutions, the world would become a better place.
James J. Y. Hsu is a retired professor of theoretical physics.
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
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS