US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified.
That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in Taiwan would still serve as useful context.
Whiton says he is a friend of Taiwan, and the harsh criticisms in the original article were to be taken as hard truths offered in this light. It is true, Whiton has spoken much about the challenges the US faces from the Chinese Communist Party and of the importance of deterring an invasion of Taiwan. These concerns are behind his frustration with the perceived inaction in Taiwan to face up to reality.
He starts with national defense, writing that Taiwan should “establish a clear concept of Taiwanese independent self-defense.” Absolutely it should. It is a point of intense frustration in Taiwan that there should be any doubt about this point. It was one of the causes for the rise of the mass recall movement. Huge swathes of civil society are with Whiton on this one, as is the government. The opposition, not so much.
He goes on to recommend that Taiwan develop an independent satellite network, and that it is right not to trust SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, asking: “Who would trust a man with a car factory in China?”
No, Taiwan should not trust Musk, and nothing Musk has said about Taiwan in the past would recommend that it should.
Whiton also writes that the government should allow for a militia and defense-in-depth, and “prepare and publicly debate plans to fight throughout the island.” These are things already being explored in Taiwan and which should be encouraged.
He then moves on to the question of support for Taiwan in Washington, which is absolutely his beat, and it would be foolish not to listen.
However, we can reserve most attention for the section that begins with the imperative “Redefine Taiwan as Taiwan.” Yes, Taiwan needs to do this. It is a constant bugbear within the country, and one that strikes to the heart of the historical, political and ideological dichotomy between the Democratic Progressive Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and between the pro-localization and pro-China sides of the debate.
Whiton mentions removing the portrait of Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) from the Legislative Yuan and the currency, repurposing the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall as a museum of democracy and getting China Airlines and China Steel Corp to change their names to something less misleading.
We could also add the renaming of street names such as Jhongjheng Road (中正路) — referring to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) — and of doing away with the absurd name “Chinese Taipei” for the Taiwanese team in international sports events. Whiton summarizes this idea as “Taiwan should intellectually sever itself from the Republic of China [ROC] concept.”
He knows what the KMT is. He knows it is the second-largest political party in Taiwan. He presumably also knows that the existence of the ROC runs to the ideological core of what the KMT is. This is no solution, it is an aspiration.
His conclusion is that Taiwan should “embrace reality even when painful, and to get on with life,” and that “Taiwan’s future would not be decided in Washington or Beijing. It would be decided in Taiwan.”
Spoken like a true friend.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did