Recently the US State Department spoke out in opposition to the referendum on Taiwan's application to the UN under the name "Taiwan."
I am aware of only a few examples in the modern era of a country telling another how to manage its internal democratic processes.
Such dictation has most often come from the former Soviet Union aimed at the states in its sphere of political and military influence in Eastern Europe.
Certainly giving instructions to a state whose population has a higher literacy rate than mine does the image of my country no good. Why, I ask, could not the State Department simply say: "That is an internal matter to be determined by the people of Taiwan according to their democratic processes"?
Given Taiwan's rapid development and democratic status, and the range of states that are UN members but fall far short of Taiwan in size, wealth or freedom, Taiwan's entry into the world body would seem quite appropriate.
The State Department could be more productive by helping to open a way forward, to correct the errors made in the 1970s when Taiwan was rhetorically abolished under the mistaken assumption that ending US recognition would force that country to join China. That did not happen and seems ever more unlikely to happen.
So the US, China and the rest of the world should be looking to the future, and asking how, realistically, to accommodate this resilient state in the world community, rather than denying patent realities while seeking to resuscitate policies of denial that have clearly failed.
Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of
International Relations
University of Pennsylvania
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS