US President Joe Biden and former US president Donald Trump did not touch on the issue of security in the Taiwan Strait during their presidential debate on Thursday last week, and they only mentioned China-related issues briefly.
That these issues were not the main focus of the debate does not mean they do not believe it is important to protect Taiwan and resist China. Rather, it shows that there is a consensus between the two major US parties on China and Taiwan, so there is no need to waste time on topics already agreed upon.
On the eve of the debate, the Washington Post invited 21 columnists to raise “21 questions for the next president that have no easy answers,” covering domestic and foreign affairs, and trade — including whether to dispatch troops in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Biden has said five times that he would assist in the defense of Taiwan, while Trump also said in May that the US would “bomb Beijing” if China invades Taiwan by force. In terms of resisting China, there is not much difference between the two sides, but only a difference in the degree of toughness.
The debate over the policy response to Russia’s war in Ukraine reflects the two candidates’ governance styles. Trump said that he was the only US president in decades who “didn’t have any wars” during his presidency, and that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine was due to Biden’s weakness.
However, Trump repeatedly boasted that he wants to end the war within a day, while holding unrealistic fantasies about Russia. He might pressure Kiev to make concessions and insist that NATO allies pay more — like a gang that tries to extort protection money — thus casting uncertainties on the US’ transatlantic partnerships.
On the other hand, Biden said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible for war crimes and that other European countries were the next target of Putin’s ambition to restore the Soviet empire. Even under the constraints of the Republican-dominated US Congress, the Biden administration has insisted on providing Ukraine with US arms and financial assistance, which is relatively reassuring in terms of policy consistency.
Apart from the presidential campaign, the post-election personnel changes and policy changes are another major concern for countries worldwide, and the appointment of the president-elect’s top national security team would influence the direction of his policy.
In March last year, former US national security adviser Robert O’Brien of the Trump administration led a delegation to Taiwan to accept a special honorary medal from then-president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). O’Brien is regarded as one of the strongest candidates to be the US secretary of state if Trump returns to the White House. Not long ago in the authoritative Foreign Affairs magazine, O’Brien published an article titled “The Return of Peace Through Strength: Making the Case for Trump’s Foreign Policy,” which is regarded as a preview of a second Trump administration’s foreign policy.
As O’Brien wrote in the article, if you want peace, you must prepare for war. He made a series of specific proposals that have never been seen before, such as complete decoupling from China’s economy, reinforcing the US military’s deployment of the elite Marine Corps in Asia, resuming underground nuclear testing and inviting Taiwan to participate in the Rim of the Pacific Exercises.
O’Brien’s harder stance makes it clear that no matter who is the next US president, the Washington consensus of resisting China would only grow stronger.
Chen Yung-chang is a manager.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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