While the US and Ukraine are reshaping bilateral relations after a jaw-dropping argument between their leaders in a televised meeting on Friday last week, Taiwan’s leading chip firm Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) on Tuesday announced that it would invest an additional US$100 billion in the US, showing a different strategy to seeking international support against neighboring authoritarian states.
The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was organized last week to sign a mining agreement that Trump had demanded as a condition for future support for Ukraine. However, the meeting turned into a heated argument as US leaders said Ukraine should express more gratitude to Washington and agree to a ceasefire with Russia, while Zelenskiy, citing Moscow’s record of broken diplomatic promises, sought more security guarantees.
Not surprisingly, the Trump administration paused military aid to Ukraine after the meeting, a move to reassert Trump’s foreign policy centered on US interests and the “America First” principle. This deterioration in US-Ukraine relations has fueled uncertainty over the Ukraine-Russia war and deepened international concerns that Trump’s policy on Ukraine would encourage increased aggression by Russia and China.
European countries have urgently initiated a joint-force security plan and a project to mobilize more than 800 billion euros (US$863 billion) to quickly build up European defense and sustained support for Ukraine, and eventually establish defense “independence,” as the US government has suggested.
Taiwan has also faced Trump’s complaints over its low defense budget and dominance in global semiconductors. However, US politicians and academics have repeatedly underlined Taiwan’s importance to US interests, as Taiwan holds a strategic geopolitical position, plays a key role in global high-tech supply chains and has been reallocating resources outside of China.
Following President William Lai’s (賴清德) pledges to increase defense spending and increase imports from the US, TSMC announced it would build three more chip plants, two packaging facilities and one research and development center in the US.
Some view TSMC’s new investments as a compromise to Trump’s demands, and raised concerns about a weakening of Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” posing a threat to national security. However, as the firm’s overseas investments need official approval, TSMC’s most advanced technology and processes would stay in Taiwan, assuring that the nation’s lead in cutting-edge technologies would be maintained, authorities said.
Just as an increase of the defense budget could help Taiwan gain access to advanced US-made weapons that were previously unavailable for purchase, the investment is a relatively wise strategic choice for TSMC to further boost its competitive edge in the global market and deepen Taiwan’s economic ties with the US.
The US fabs would take six to 10 years to build. TSMC said that projected output of the six factories in the US would account for only 5 to 7 percent of its overall production capacity, which could be lower as the company continues to expand global operations.
Moreover, TSMC would be able to expand its own production, instead of investing in its US rival, Intel — reportedly one of the options in Trump’s plan to increase US chip production. The US factories could help it avoid tariffs and provide more direct services to its US clients. The investment could become a partnership between Taiwan and the US in artificial intelligence development and the high-tech competition with China.
TSMC’s global investments could create a win-win situation with Taiwan’s allies. Aside from the US, Taiwan should also increase its economic ties with European and Asian countries unsettled by China’s threats, ensuring that Taiwan’s national security is a common interest of Taiwan and the rest of the world.
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS