American Institute in Taipei Director Douglas Paal visited Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
According to Ma, Paal said that uncertainties in cross-strait relations create inconveniences for American businesspeople in Taiwan who also do business in China. Ma said Paal told him the number of American Chamber of Commerce Taipei members is dropping. He reportedly told Ma that if cross-strait contacts were more convenient, foreign businesses would be more willing to stay.
In view of Taiwan's precarious international status, the more foreign business interests here, the better. So why are foreign businesspeople leaving? It seems reasonable to interpret Paal's remarks as encouraging and supporting direct links. Of course, that kind of position coming from the AIT director is understandable. But are Paal's comments also representative of the US government's stance on direct links? If so, then the question becomes what is the US willing to offer to help direct links become a reality.
The government has been extremely cautious about opening direct links because of national security concerns. It must give priority to the lives of the people and the nation's survival. This is something surely Washington can understand, given its commitment and determination to combat terrorism at home and abroad despite an economic downturn. Paal was certainly right when he said, during a recent speech on the impact of the Sept. 11 attack on US policies, that a secure and confident Taiwan will be more able to to engage in political interaction and dialogues with China.
Taiwan's problem is simply that it does not feel confident and secure enough to open up direct links. So, if either or both the US and Beijing, at Washington's behest, can give Taiwan even more confidence and sense of security through either additional promises or substantive actions, thing will more than likely be entirely different. Until then, Taiwan won't feel ready.
However, the government must also shoulder responsibility for the departure of foreign businesses. As much as one hates to admit it, the biggest vulnerability of President Chen Shui-bian's (
But what are we to make of Ma's reporting of his talk with Paal? Traditionally the content of such closed-door meetings is not disclosed. Ma broke protocol by doing so. One has to wonder why? Was it perhaps because Paal's comments -- as reported by Ma -- closely fit with the mayor's own agenda? There has been much made in the past week of Ma's rising star in the KMT and his possible presidential ambitions. Perhaps he would do well to remember that diplomacy is a key element of the nation's top job and that includes knowing when to talk and when not to. After all, Paal, like his predecessors, must walk a fine line about what they can say publicly about Taiwan, about China and about direct links. AIT has its own spokesperson -- it doesn't need another in Taipei.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military