Wherever we are, we live in a Trumpian world. One worrying development is the notion that all is fluid and we must sit back and see what happens. That White House spokespeople have stepped in to meliorate US President Donald Trump’s intentions at times seems to have allayed fears that it is never too late. However, outside of the US or Europe, it is not easy relax.
The idea that it is too early for final judgements is generally fair and can be borne in mind, but it should not be given too much space. Particularly when many commentators are now saying that the Trump problem is no worse than other recent crises that have occurred in the US.
The opposite could be argued: that the threat from Trump as heard in his rhetoric and seen in his actions has no comparison with anything that has happened in the past 50 years. The idea that the US system of governance, media, public opinion, etc, in combination will be sufficient to hold back a tide of change well beyond US shores is far too sanguine. Indeed, it is lazy thinking and no one in Taiwan can afford to be that lazy.
The biggest events in the US presidency since World War II have been the assassination of former US president John F. Kennedy amidst a virulent civil rights movement and the background of nuclear war threats; the shock in 1971 which was said to end with Watergate, but more importantly centered on China and a new international economic system when then-US president Richard Nixon on Aug. 15 canceled the direct convertibility of the US dollar to gold, thus forcing the market to change to floating exchange rates; and the sex scandal surrounding former US president Bill Clinton, muffled but extended by problematic evidence and the cloisters of power.
Nothing of this, even the Kennedy case, amounts to much against the world of Trump.
Such relatively simplistic comparisons are of little use. The Kennedy crisis was profound, but did not center on the president himself or even his office. Although culpable for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Kennedy was considered above reproach within the US and was well-liked internationally — he was the handsome face of the new post-war breeds in those places where the modern middle class had inherited power.
Nixon had no charisma and was not much liked, but his actual misdemeanor was minor (everyone did something of the sort) and his policies were candid, interesting and positive: friendship with China, the introduction of Medicare, a generous trade policy with poorer nations, a personal position that was not aggressive toward Vietnamese. Momentum was against him and buoyancy was instilled internationally with the windfall gains that Japan and the newly industrialized Asian countries, such as Taiwan, received from floating exchange values.
Clinton’s crisis was entirely personal, but of little real importance outside his own concerns and ambitions, or amongst those who believe that great power in the US should only exist alongside exemplary moral status.
Trump fits none of this. There is a sort of underground economic policy which could scrape by, depending on how high he maintains defense expenditures and whether he proceeds with an actual Mexican border wall, which might convince even his most glutinous followers that he (or his) are somewhat unbalanced.
The biggest threat is that his conflicting rhetoric and impending policy regime is what was on the cards when he was elected. He was never secretive about the outrageous issues. Furthermore, he has a host of micro-electronic communication devices and opinion-making techniques that Nixon might have loved to have, and which Trump understands perfectly. He might look foolish, bearish and ridiculously breathless, but he is actually quite difficult to beat. If his brash thoughtlessness finds a bullet, then things would get worse, and quickly.
I and many others have already dealt with the sofa-theory notions of checks and balances — the personnel at the top are already being shuffled and pressured and the huge coming emphasis on foreign policy and aggressions will always shift power toward the White House. It is very difficult to check that which is overbalanced, even at the best of times.
So I do not think that a platform of hopeful thinking is of much use when there is no sign of substantial change from the president himself. Mentality is one thing, but remember that the best evidence of the American psyche lies in the results of presidential elections. Small-sample surveys are nothing compared with the overwhelming unexpectedness of Trump’s victory.
On that solid evidence, very large numbers of Americans will be prepared to let things go for a while. In the meantime, the rest of the world is not standing still. Some rather odious elements are gaining strength from Trump and worrying a fair number, from the border regions in Mexico and southern US states, to the citizens of the South China Sea.
For Taiwan, Trump’s politics seriously threaten economic potentials in the existing international system. The slim evidence of US economic recovery, which would otherwise suck in Taiwanese imports; the slow-down of growth in China accompanied by structural changes; and the seemingly sustained emergence of poorer economies could all positively effect Taiwanese political economy.
In the absence of Trumpian effects, structural change in China combined with some maturity in its foreign relations could benefit Taiwan’s technology trade, which would be further boosted by some switching to southern economies as envisaged by the Democratic Progressive Party. These are precisely the systems, with growing middle classes, that would absorb the sort of mid-tech exports that Taiwan produces so well.
Much of China’s commodity exports are comprised of Taiwanese tech-inputs, so as China modernizes through restructuring, it will absorb more Taiwanese goods. Taiwanese firms should expect to benefit from sending out routine production to the now-emerging economies where labor is cheaper, but increasingly better trained or experienced. Generally, the better distribution of growth worldwide should particularly benefit Taiwan.
However, Trumpian instability clearly threaten all of this and inhibits long-term economic planning based on thoughtful trading policies.
From what — given Trump’s dominance — seems increasingly like the relatively healthy political environ of London, things look somewhat forlorn. If that word suggests abandonment, then I think it is about right: Europe and the US are threatening abandonment of each other, popular voters seem to have abandoned common sense, the Atlantic is abandoning its status to several large developing systems by the Pacific who share very different — yet often quite coherent — views of the future. The US could be well placed for that, but Trump threatens all.
Ian Inkster is a professorial research associate at the Center of Taiwan Studies, SOAS and the University of London, and is editor of the journal History of Technology.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under