Auric Goldfinger, James Bond's most memorable adversary, said of unfortunate events with a tendency to recur: "The first time is happenstance, the second time coincidence, the third time is enemy action." So who is the enemy responsible for this week's Cabinet near-meltdown, the third in two years? Unfortunately, if the blame is to be pinned on anybody, it is not on the much-questioned motives of those who organized Saturday's protest demonstration by farmers and fishermen. Rather it has to be laid at the door of the president himself. Chen Shui-bian (
It was shocking to hear of Chen protesting last week that he had been misled by the Cabinet as to the real nature of farmers' and fishermen's grievances and the strength of opposition to the Ministry of Finance's restructuring plan. How could the president have been misled? Maybe there is truth in KMT Chairman Lien Chan's (
It would be nice to know exactly where Chen thinks he has been misled. Was it that he was not properly informed about the finance ministry's plan? Then surely it was his job to get informed. He's the president; he just has to ask for a briefing. Was it that he was not informed about the farmers' and fishermen's feelings? The Council of Agriculture should have told him. If it couldn't, he should have demanded better intelligence. And whatever information it did provide, he should have used his own sources -- talks with legislators of party rank and file from rural communities for example -- to cross-check. It was, in fact, just such a meeting which led to his asking the Cabinet a week ago to suspend the financial reform plan. But why didn't Chen initiate something of this sort before the reforms were implemented in the fist place. It is simply unacceptable to be told that a crisis, which has the potential to wreck the Cabinet and has been two months in the making, can catch the president unawares.
The premier is apparently to stay in place. Nevertheless Minister of Finance Lee Yung-san (
We do not yet know who might take the spare Cabinet places. But a wider question has to be: why would anybody want to? First on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant issue and now on the reform of farmers' and fishermen's credit associations, the president has displayed political incompetence, followed by an ugly tendency to call on ministers to allow ignominy to be heaped upon their heads to save him from the consequences of his own lack of judgement. It is hard to imagine that a job description which revolves around a readiness to be the president's whipping boy is going to attract the sort of expertise the Cabinet really needs.
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS