President Ma Ying Jeou’s (馬英九) first state visit to diplomatic allies is under way. In the past, these small states in Central and South America learned to profit from the cross-strait diplomatic competition by approaching Taipei and Beijing with their hands out. Now, however, Ma’s stress on his cross-strait “diplomatic truce” means that they are weighing their options. Ma should be given credit for his new approach in so far as it means that our allies will not get everything they ask for, but the “diplomatic truce” must not mean giving up allies without a fight.
In a true diplomatic truce, both sides would have to lay down their arms. Now, Taiwan is at an extreme disadvantage in its diplomatic tug-of-war with China. The capital and energy invested in the past was intended to avert the crisis over Taiwan’s sovereignty and international space. In such life-and-death battles, there is no room for mistakes.
Diplomacy is a game of deceit, and the members of the international community look for substantial benefits. Ma’s new diplomatic strategy is ultimately dependent on China’s goodwill, and the fact that he is already leaning toward China leaves him no space for negotiation and compromise. If our allies turn to Beijing, one might say that such allies are not worth having, but we must remember that without those allies, Taiwan will become even more isolated and helpless internationally. Ma and his government will be the first to suffer if that happens.
Considering that China has always done all it can to suppress Taiwan internationally, it is absurd to pin our hopes on Beijing not trying to entice our allies simple because of the so-called “diplomatic truce.” Predicating the “truce” on China’s goodwill begs the question of how much trust there is between the two sides, and how long that trust, if it indeed exists, will persist. These are all unknowable variables
Before implementing the “diplomatic truce,” the focus must be on communicating our ideals and persuading China, and not on unilateral compromise. Since this is a new approach to maintaining national sovereignty, there can be no confusion between means and goals.
The Ma administration wants to abandon the money diplomacy but maintain our allies. What is the overall diplomatic strategy that will achieve this goal? As president, it is Ma’s duty to clearly explain this to the Taiwanese. While it is true that his administration has reduced cross-strait tension — at least for now — the closer relationship is a problem for the US because it is no longer clear where Taiwan belongs. Despite this, Ma has not offered an unambiguous explanation, and his government policy continues to lean heavily toward China without any signs that the government sees cause for alarm or a need to correct the situation.
Still, militarily, economically and internationally, the US remains Taiwan’s most important supporter. The US government is still waiting for Ma to react to the rumored freeze on US arms sales to Taiwan. A president is supposed to set a nation’s primary goals and deal with the big issues.
Rather than micro-managing and fiddling with trivialities such as saving a few dollars on chartering regular aircraft for overseas state visits, Ma should expend his efforts on designing the main direction of the nation’s future development.
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