President Chen Shui-bian (
The shouts of disapproval within Taiwan -- mostly from the pan-blue camp -- regarding the stopover in Libya have two main themes. First, since Libya is a country that is well-known for its past association with terrorist activities and Taiwan is a democratic country that places a high premium on respect for human rights, there is concern about damage to Taiwan's international image. And second, there is a fear that the stopover may upset the US, since Libya continues to be on the US' terrorist blacklist.
Chen's decision to go ahead with the stopover in Libya, and the possibility of building closer ties with that country, was obviously based on pragmatic, strategic and self-interest considerations alone. So far, Taiwan's "good image" has not helped the nation win formal diplomatic recognition from foreign nations and respect within the international community. There are, of course, inherent risks associated with allowing Taiwan's image to become degraded. This needs to be balanced against Libya's strategic importance as a springboard into North Africa and the abundant oil resources of the country.
Furthermore, it isn't as though Taiwan has no experience in courting friendships with countries trapped in controversies. When South Africa faced diplomatic isolation due to its apartheid system, Taiwan was one of the country's few formal allies. Of course, as soon as South Africa regained a position in the international community after it abandoned apartheid, it severed formal diplomatic ties with the nation. That is the sad reality of international politics, but it also highlights Taiwan's plight and the good sense of Chen's stopover diplomacy.
The truth is that moral and ethical considerations do not weigh heavily in the decision of most countries when they embrace "one China" and sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. One cannot help but ask: Is it such a crime for Taiwan, in the face of severe international isolation, to give self-interest top priority? As former French president Charles de Gaulle once said, "Nations don't have friends, they have interests."
As for concerns about upsetting the US, that has proven to be a non-issue. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said on Thursday that the relationship between his country and Libya has changed over the past few years, after Libya gave up its program to develop weapons of mass destruction. So, it is up to Taiwan and Libya whether they want to develop their bilateral relationship. The US has no qualms about the matter.
The joke is that pan-blue lawmakers are usually the first ones to jump up and accuse the Chen government of "kissing up" to the US. Their anti-US sentiment has kept the arms procurement bill tied up in the Legislative Yuan for two years now. Since when have they been concerned about how the US feels about anything?
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS