As far as political sentiment and support for Taiwan go, I am fully in accord with Jerome Keating ("China must learn from Taiwan's democracy," May 9, page 8). However, it seems to me he ignores some of the realities in order to present an over-simplification unworthy of him or the situation.
First, his constant use of "Taiwan versus China" rhetoric would cause an uninformed reader to believe that this was a united nation struggling against a foreign oppressor. Of course Taiwan is not at all united, as the recent visits of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and his People First Party counterpart James Soong (宋楚瑜) show.
These men are patently willing to become part of China, as are their people. They are self-evidently not democrats, tainted as they are by their collaboration with the former dictatorship, and it must be assumed that those who follow in their train would similarly "use" rather than "practice" democracy. Is this what they have to teach China? Democratic advances have been made by a minority of KMT members and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and I wish China would learn from them, but this is not the whole story.
As for the "rule of law," regulations about motorcycle helmets and garbage disposal are obeyed because they are enforced. Unenforced laws are not obeyed, in any country, and there are plenty of unenforced laws in Taiwan. Helmet regulations? How about traffic regulations? Canvass many of the Filipino, Thai and Indonesian indentured laborers and ask them what they think of the rule of law in regard to their contracts and human rights. Is this what we are to teach China? Keating's is a very selectively constructed Taiwan.
I think Taiwan is an amazing country which has done very well in advancing democracy, human rights and the rule of law, but let's balance propaganda with reality. I should have thought that someone with the undoubted intelligence, experience and knowledge of Keating might present us with something more analytical, balanced and profound than a Friday-night pub rant.
Rowan Hunter
Taipei
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS