“We support democratic Taiwan, but a visit by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi is of no benefit to the nation.”
That was the subtext of some op-eds published in the past few days in liberal-leaning Western newspapers and magazines.
The visit was “unfortunate,” Shelley Rigger, a political scientist at Davidson College, said in a New Yorker interview published on Thursday last week, while Pulitzer prize-winning author Thomas Friedman in a New York Times piece published on Monday last week, before Pelosi had even arrived in Taiwan, found her planned trip “utterly reckless.”
China started large-scale retaliatory military drills near Taiwan following Pelosi’s departure, and after Beijing apparently extended the exercises some speculated that such drills could become a new normal. The US pundits’ pro-China peers in Taiwan could in the same vein claim that “thanks to the US, Taiwan is facing a cross-strait crisis, but has received no immediate benefit.”
Their arguments are short-sighted and wrong, although for different reasons, and Rigger, Friedman and their ilk can at least be given the benefit of the doubt that they do not fully grasp the situation. Pelosi’s visit was not unfortunate and did not come at the wrong time, as they implied, although the timing was maybe not right either; right would have been earlier, and more often.
Before Pelosi’s trip, 25 years had passed since a sitting US House speaker — Newt Gingrich — previously visited Taiwan. Her trip was no escalation, as implied by Rigger and Friedman, but a mere reassertion of Taiwan’s well-established sovereign right to receive a US official of her rank. Faced with China’s increasing attempts to salami-slice Taiwan’s frail sovereignty, the nation should reassert its well-established rights whenever the chance arises.
China’s military drills are largely intended by its leadership as a message to a domestic audience — “Do you see how tough we are on Taiwan?” — and while the normalization of such drills might be a mouth-watering slice of the salami for Beijing, they would not bring it any closer to its goal of “unification.”
Faced with Chinese threats, harsh words and import bans, Taiwan must not falter, now or ever. Should Taipei reassert its right to set its own trade policies and sign a free-trade deal with Washington, as planned under the US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade, it would be naive to expect China to do nothing in return.
However, its options with regard to taking decisive steps toward its goal are limited. China can try to impress with its drills, but it does not have the capabilities to force Taiwan to surrender by military means, nor could it weather the global storm that would arise should it try to force Taiwan to negotiate terms of surrender by means of a full-scale economic blockade.
Meanwhile, Taiwan changing its status for the better would also be no easy endeavor, and however pressing it might appear now, the focus should be on using international relations to reassert and safeguard the sovereignty it has.
Going beyond that, and doing so safely, would also require decisive, coordinated action. In contrast to what former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo seemed to envision when he last month urged the US to formally recognize Taiwan, such a step should not be taken in reaction to symbolic Chinese machinations, but should be coordinated between Taipei, Washington and other global capitals to ensure that it is decisive enough to truly end the game of cat-and-mouse over Taiwan.
Chris van Laak is a copy editor at the Taipei Times.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals