US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.”
Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in their full context indicates that he was actually referring not to China and Taiwan, but to China-US cooperation and “unity” that he had discussed at length in a prior interview.
Yet, Trump said something else in last week’s news conference that was potentially far more momentous, but whose significance has gone entirely unnoticed, although almost certainly not in Beijing.
“Look, China — and I don’t like this. I’m not happy about this. China’s getting killed right now. They’re getting absolutely destroyed. Their factories are closing. Their unemployment is going through the roof. I’m not looking to do that to China. Now, at the same time, I’m not looking to have China make hundreds of billions of dollars, and build more ships and more army tanks and more airplanes,” he said.
The comment was apparently the first time Trump had linked China’s economic power with its military threat.
In a subsequent interview, Trump said: “The relationship is very good. We’re not looking to hurt China. China is being hurt very badly — they were closing up factories, they were having a lot of unrest and they were very happy to be able to do something with us. The relationship is very, very good. I’ll speak to President Xi [Jinping (習近平)] maybe at the end of the week. We have some other things we’re doing.”
That the impact of Trump’s tariffs could generate such internal ferment in such a short period of time demonstrates that in the economic realm of US-China competition, China — using Trump’s harsh formulation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy — ”does not have the cards.”
Trump does have the cards if he is willing to play them against Xi, his Chinese “friend.” Domestic legitimacy in a communist or other authoritarian state is always the regime’s Achilles heel, hence the panicked Tiananmen Square Massacre under “great reformer” Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平).
As the trade-off for suppressing the political rights of Chinese, Beijing has promised relative economic prosperity and stability. Any sustained economic downturn — whether caused by leadership mismanagement or by externally-imposed tariffs — threatens the political and security bargain Beijing has struck with Chinese and gives Trump enormous leverage to accomplish something genuinely historic.
Trump eventually realized that Xi deceived him about the COVID-19 crisis that killed 1 million Americans and contributed to his 2020 re-election defeat. He should have no qualms about using every weapon at his disposal to gain the strategic advantage over China, whether it hurts Xi’s feelings or not. Trump should be as relentless in seeking peaceful “retribution” against the US’ real and existential enemies as he has been vengeful against perceived slights from domestic political rivals.
If Trump can muster the political wisdom and moral courage to seize the unique opportunity created by his tariffs and China’s economic and political vulnerability, he has the prospect of inducing the substantive change in China that former US president Richard Nixon sought, but failed to achieve in his historic opening.
Ending all US sanctions could be a significant added incentive, with Syria as a recent model. After regime change with former Syrian president Bashir al-Assad’s forced departure, Trump lifted economic sanctions and promised US support for a reformed government.
To enhance the domestic political pressure for political change in China, Trump’s hand would be greatly strengthened by the economic aid and development activities of the Agency for International Development (USAID), and the informational prowess of Radio Free Asia (RFA), which was created in response to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and Voice of America (VOA), which helped win the Cold War. Unfortunately, the potential international impact of each of those agencies of soft power has been drastically diminished by the Trump administration’s governmental reorganizations, but Trump has shown a willingness to reverse course and make selective adjustments when they advance his agenda, and he could profitably enlist the support of USAID, RFA and VOA in the titanic project to change the Chinese Communist Party for the benefit of Chinese and Americans, and world peace. Such a development would seriously advance Trump’s prospects for a Nobel Peace Prize and possible enshrinement on Mount Rushmore.
Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the US secretary of defense from 2005 to 2006, and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010.
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living? This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty.
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS