On a recent journey, a Taiwanese colleague expressed her admiration for President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), and asked if I was likewise impressed.
She was initially surprised when I said that I find Tsai’s two terms in office “frustrating.”
Tsai has arguably been the most competent national leader Taiwan has ever had in administering the country’s international relations and keeping a steady hand on the diplomatic rudder. She has reassured Taiwan’s allies and friends, and exposed Beijing’s provocations as well as the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) ham-fisted attempts to throw spanners in the cogs of Taipei-Washington and Taipei-Tokyo relations.
It is true that Tsai did not engineer a globally noticed international relations “coup” such as former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore. However, to expect that from Tsai is to fundamentally misunderstand her. Vanessa Hope’s revealing documentary Invisible Nation provides unparalleled access to and insight into the life and style of Tsai, from policy wonk to president.
The film shows us someone with a wry sense of humor and iron-clad values of responsibility and prudence. Tsai and president-elect William Lai’s (賴清德) election campaign driving advert was a smart piece of political communication and reflected both Tsai’s tenure and democratic professionalism in transitioning power to a former rival.
In contrast to her predecessor’s obsession with image, obedience and national-building in the sands of historical revisionism, Tsai’s priority has been stability, consistency and a quiet incrementalism in areas such as human rights, transitional justice and defense. However, her leadership has been uneven and that is where the frustration needs to be addressed. Tsai has made mistakes in her two terms, as any leader can be expected to do.
Most of these come on the domestic policy front, and failure to lead more forcefully in a clearer direction and to lay down a vision of a sustainable political economy for the future was reflected in the Legislative Yuan election in January. The Tsai administration has not nearly gone far enough to address discontents such as the cost of living, house prices, stagnant low wages, environmental pollution and incoherence in policies on immigration and asylum. In some cases of important reforms, the delivery was mishandled, such as in the pension reforms, which antagonized many elderly Taiwanese and those in iron rice bowl professions who might have otherwise been better convinced of the need for change in this area.
It is no coincidence that birthrates have dropped in nations like Taiwan that are wealthy on spreadsheets, but hugely unequal and precarious in the streets. Taiwan is truly a prosperous country where all citizens enjoy the “convenience” of any service being available, aside from the small print saying “if you can afford it.” As productivity and GDP per person has risen, the share of that pot has not spread across society proportionally. To add to this disparity is a widening generational gap in wealth and financial security, the only thing holding back a wider systemic revolt at the hoarding of property and position to the exclusion of younger generations is their understanding and expectation of their inheritance of these coveted prizes.
At a macro level it is unfair and unrealistic to pin blame on Tsai for being singularly unable to slow the motion of this trend. Tsai does not have a big red “make more babies” button she can press any more than she has one that would stop the People’s Republic of China (PRC) wanting to annex Taiwan. She faces the limits of working with elected politicians who are part of a complex patchwork of bureaucratic and economic structural obstacles to advancing significant change in any direction. Inertia is baked into a self-protecting system of interrelated and legal and extra-legal conflicting interests. However, that is no excuse for not having and rhetorically delivering a wider vision of the direction of travel, a plan for steering the nation on a less wasteful path, and at least trying to head off the discontents before it results in egotists and soap-box charlatans seizing power.
A friend once said that diplomacy is the politics of betrayal, and Taiwan’s history of international relations stands as a good example. Friends today might take a check from your enemy tomorrow.
As Lai is preparing to take office in May, there exists an opportunity for him to build on Tsai strengths and address her weaknesses, and likewise for the British government to reorient its approach to Taiwan and to recognize the Taiwanese right to self-determination. The UK must take substantive steps to blow the cobwebs off of 70 years of an ossified policy toward the region stuck in Cold War calculations. That means having the courage to reword policies to reflect the reality that Taiwan is an important ally in practice, before, not after, the PRC creates a new de facto “status quo” that British would only be able to mewl about from the sidelines.
Some argue that the best deterrence of conflict across the Taiwan Strait is assurance. It is a perspective that relegates Taiwan to a pawn in great power rivalries and it invites disaster. The best assurance for Taiwan — which should be centered in discussion as a basic act of respect — is deterrence which speaks plainly and consistently, and not predicated on or shaped by wishful pretense of goodwill and restraint on the part of agencies which are quite clear in their forceful intentions.
Ben Goren is director of communications for the Taiwan Policy Centre and a long-term resident of Taiwan.
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