Vice President William Lai (賴清德), the Democratic Progressive Party’s presidential candidate, on Monday last week told a forum in Yilan County that next year’s election is a choice between Zhongnanhai — the corridors of power in Beijing — and the White House.
“If a Taiwanese president can enter the White House, we will have achieved the political objective that we have been pursuing,” he said.
Asked about Lai’s remarks, Taiwan People’s Party Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said: “We are vying to be the president of Taiwan, not a US state governor. Neither are we applying to be a foreign domestic helper in the White House.”
After his comment drew a backlash, Ko said that even though the US is an important ally, the president of Taiwan must remain autonomous, reiterating his policy of maintaining equidistant relations with Washington and Beijing. He later added on Twitter that Lai’s stated political objective “wasn’t enough,” meaning that Taipei should have good relations with every member of the international community.
As always happens in politics, and especially during major election campaigns, candidates’ words are misunderstood — either genuinely or intentionally — or distorted, if not by the candidates themselves, then by political commentators, the media or members of the public. Suffice it to say that both candidates have legitimate points, but it is important to cut through the political haze and the candidates’ respective agendas.
Ko’s position has legitimate value, which is why he believes the election should not be a choice between Washington and Beijing. He is also correct that ideally, the president of Taiwan should not value the relationship with the US over the exclusion of those with other countries.
This is, of course, not what Lai meant. If Taiwan’s president can be welcomed into the White House — without drawing an extremely negative reaction from Beijing — it would show that the nation has finally been officially recognized as part of the international community.
Indeed, if the US led on this, the governments of other countries would surely follow.
Ko also neglected to mention that the reason Lai would have to choose between Zhongnanhai and the White House is that the former would almost certainly refuse to deal with him, as it has with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) since 2016. A less charitable interpretation of Ko’s omissions and apparent misreading of Lai’s point is that he is simply appealing to US skeptics to attract more pro-blue camp voters by criticizing his political rival.
Tsai has appointed Lai to attend the Aug. 15 inauguration of Paraguayan president-elect Santiago Pena. The vice president is to transit through the US on his way to Asuncion. Lai would not be visiting the White House, nor is he expected to meet any high-ranking US officials. Furthermore, it is customary for Taiwanese officials to travel through the US when visiting allies in South or Central America.
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Mao Ning (毛寧) said that Beijing has already lodged a complaint with the US, objecting to its “connivance” with “Taiwanese separatists” by allowing Lai’s stopover.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday said that the stopover is “very routine” and that Beijing should not use it as a pretext for initiating provocative actions.
All of Taiwan’s presidential candidates should welcome a US official as senior as Blinken speaking up for the vice president and pushing back against Beijing’s intimidation. They should also support Lai on his mission of goodwill to a diplomatic ally, regardless of whether it is in their political interest during this campaign. It is certainly in the national interest.
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