The Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday last week publicly thanked Washington after three US government agencies wrote a joint letter urging the top 500 companies in the US to boost business ties with Taiwan. The letter is an important indicator of the healthy state of US-Taiwan relations and proves that Taiwan is an indispensable partner for Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
The letter demonstrates the success of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) foreign policy and the whole nation’s efforts. Taiwan is the US’ 11th-largest trading partner, ninth-largest export destination for US agricultural products and seventh-largest source of international students. Taiwanese also benefit from visa-free travel to the US.
The US-China trade dispute has been raging for more than a year, and the two are undisputed competitors. The letter’s call for US companies to support Taiwanese businesses shows the importance that Washington attaches to US-Taiwan relations.
Although China enjoys formal diplomatic ties with the US, what good does it do them? The informal ties between the US and Taiwan represent much better relations, as shown by Taiwanese being able to travel to the US visa-free.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) slings mud at Tsai, accusing her of not prioritizing the health of the nation’s economy.
The KMT criticizes Tsai for “causing misery and hardship,” but it should have the integrity to acknowledge that the policies pursued by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) are the main reason for current economic woes.
It is not difficult to refute the rubbish spouted by the KMT, such as the opinion piece by Chen Chih-ko (陳止戈) in yesterday’s Taipei Times (“Han’s sour view does not add up,” page 8).
Just hold up some hard data to discredit slogan-parroting, potty-mouthed KMT politicians. The Taiwanese public is wising up to the lies peddled by the KMT.
Chen Kuo-hsiung is a former research fellow of the World United Formosans for Independence.
Translated by Edward Jones
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)