It may seem premature to assess the benefits for Taiwan that the US presidential candidates may offer after gaining office. Yet there are hints of things to come from the Democrats based on the written word.
An article by Jeffrey Bader and Richard Bush of the Brookings Institution released this week suggests that if Democratic Senator Barack Obama were president, then Taiwanese who value democracy have reason to be even more nervous than they are now.
Taiwan has long been a crucible for American think tank staffers and academics, whose fantasies of an enlightened Chinese state and theories of cultivatible goodwill among China’s leaders continue to astonish us with their naivete.
Bader and Richard Bush’s article may be the first signal that Taiwanese democrats will have no choice but to support Republican Senator John McCain’s presidential candidacy before he has even made a move on China policy.
The authors are reportedly awaiting senior positions in an Obama administration, which lends weight to these fears. In Richard Bush’s case, the article is particularly disappointing: As a former American Institute in Taiwan chairman, he was well placed to understand that the situation in China is far more complex than the article’s banal allusions to the Chinese psyche might admit.
Their argument is that China deserves to be treated with kid gloves because this achieves results. What those results are and who the recipients might be is not presented in a comprehensive fashion, leaving the reader to assume that — in China, at any rate — economic growth conquers all and that China’s “poor” rights record is defensible in a historical context.
“China’s human rights record is poor, but its people are much freer than were their parents under Mao [Zedong, 毛澤東],” the authors argue, a fatuous argument similar to that of former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger in a hagiography of Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) in Time magazine several months ago.
China’s beneficiaries are probably those who remind the authors of themselves: the elite, the wealthy, the urban, the eloquent, the successful, the educated and the upwardly mobile. Most Chinese, however, are none of these and never will be; what property rights the peasantry gained after Mao’s demise have proven worthless in the face of predatory local governments, Beijing’s grandiose infrastructural projects and colossal environmental ruin.
The suggestion that Washington’s dealings with China “should be offered in the spirit of trying to help them help themselves, not in order to judge them as morally deficient” is even harder to sustain given that the Chinese government is morally deficient. Such a government — with its litany of abuses of the weakest members of its society and its morally vacuous conduct in the international sphere, most recently seen in protecting Zimbabwe from UN sanctions and even in its humiliation of the International Olympic Committee — cannot be trusted to “help itself” when it already considers itself beyond Washington’s reproach, or anyone’s reproach, for that matter.
Worst of all is the authors’ argument that China should not be “condemned” on anything it does, no matter how atrocious, provocative or illegal.
If this kind of rationalization of Chinese misrule, aggression and disingenuousness fairly reflects an Obama administration’s take on US-China relations, there will be no “change we can believe in” as far as Taiwanese are concerned. Instead, there will only be cause for despair as the pro-China network settles in for yet another term, comfortable in the knowledge that Obama will have neither the incentive nor the intellectual support to help Taiwan recover the ground that it is losing.
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