For the most part, fans of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continue to blindly admire him no matter what happens. They only stop short of shouting “long live our heroic leader,” as people did in the bad old days of dictatorship. Ma says that Taiwan’s relations with the US are better than ever, that relations across the Taiwan Strait are more harmonious than ever, and that “the other side of the Strait” (read: China) has shown Taiwan lots of “goodwill.” He tells us that all is well and his faithful followers believe every word of it.
It is ironic that US Vice President Joe Biden has chosen today as his date of arrival in Beijing for his current visit to China. The timing is like a double slap in the face for Ma — one slap from Washington and another from Beijing.
Exactly 29 years have passed since the US and China signed the Aug. 17 Communique, in which the US accepted limits on the quantity and quality of its arms sales to Taiwan and agreed not to pursue policies recognizing “one China, one Taiwan” or “two Chinas.”
This communique amounted to putting pressure on then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) to surrender to China and came as a great shock to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
Out of all the days in the year, Biden had to choose Aug. 17 to arrive in Beijing, yet Ma, apparently oblivious to the significance of this date, seems to think he has a special place in the hearts of both US and Chinese leaders.
In 1978, then-US president Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski picked May 20, the day of Chiang’s inauguration as president, to visit Beijing — a classic joint insult by the US and China to Chiang and the “Republic of China.” At the time, Taiwan’s embassy in Washington mobilized friendly members of the US Congress to lambaste the Carter administration over the incident.
The date of Biden’s arrival in Beijing was reportedly China’s decision, but Biden, having served on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years and having experienced the controversy that followed the signing of the Aug. 17 Communique, could hardly be unaware of the message Beijing intends to convey.
On his trip to Beijing today, even if he does not tell the Chinese side what the US has decided regarding arms sales to Taiwan, as media reports have been guessing, China is sure to use the opportunity to rub salt into Taiwan’s wounds by demanding that the US stick to the terms of the communique and refrain from interfering in what China considers to be its “internal affairs.”
Biden and the US Department of State are well aware of the tricks China is playing, but they are willing to play along according to China’s script. What is that, if not a double slap in the face for Ma?
After the KMT government retreated to exile in Taiwan, the focus of its diplomatic policy was on keeping its seat in the UN and maintaining good relations with the US. After the US broke off diplomatic relations in 1979, Chiang did all he could to ensure continued US arms sales to Taiwan and uphold national security.
Now it is a different story, as Taiwan’s national identity is watered down bit by bit under the Ma administration. As far as this government is concerned, China’s wish is its command in all matters of foreign policy. Taiwanese diplomats abroad get paid well for sitting around all day and doing hardly anything useful.
Perhaps we should ask our government the same thing that media critics asked then-foreign minister Wei Tao-ming (魏道明) in 1971 when Taiwan lost its UN seat — what kind of foreign policy do you call this?
James Wang is a journalist based in Washington.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that