US President Donald Trump is an extremely stable genius. Within his first month of presidency, he proposed to annex Canada and take military action to control the Panama Canal, renamed the Gulf of Mexico, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a dictator and blamed him for the Russian invasion. He has managed to offend many leaders on the planet Earth at warp speed.
Demanding that Europe step up its own defense, the Trump administration has threatened to pull US troops from the continent. Accusing Taiwan of stealing the US’ semiconductor business, it intends to impose heavy tariffs on integrated circuit chips or demand that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) increase investments in the US and initiate tech transfers to Intel. This transactional approach, unconstrained by norms, morality, or conventional wisdom, is unpredictable and considerably undependable.
Trump is a tough negotiator. These could be his ways of getting what he wants. Democratic countries, accustomed to value-based instead of transaction-based leadership, are preparing for the worst, but hoping for a win-win scenario, which would only come by working together with mutual respect and through innovative alternatives instead of my way or your way.
Adjusting policies in this uncertain time, Canada has begun to replace Russia in supplying energy to Europe, which appears to be a win-win higher way.
Zelenskiy, a courageous and strong leader facing a most difficult war, has offered to resign as president in exchange for Ukraine’s NATO membership. Fighting in the front line for the democratic and free world with 80,000 killed and 400,000 wounded, Ukraine deserves unconditional support from all countries.
Inasmuch as the conventional wisdom to punish the aggressors for them to pay for war crimes and destruction, it is hard to ignore that imperialism has not gone away into history books when the US asks for Ukraine’s mineral rights.
However, in the reality of the transactional paradigm, if Ukraine offers US the right of first refusal to buy up to 50 percent of its rare earth minerals at fair market prices in exchange for the US’ security guarantee, that could be a win-win.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has over the past few days also suggested bringing Moscow back to the Western camp, which would undoubtedly be rejected. After all, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
However, if Putin is willing to resign and allow Russia to become democratic in whole or in pieces, it could be another win-win.
TSMC dominates global high-end chip supply and US investors hold a majority of its shares.
Imposing heavy tariffs on chips would add inflationary pressure on electronic goods and hurt most of the magnificent-seven US companies, not to mention the artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructures during this AI revolution.
Making sure TSMC can continue running a prosperous business would only be a win-win for Taiwan and the US.
TSMC is fully supported by the dedicated talent in Taiwan, which is why it excels. It has also benefited from the free trade of crucial technologies among democratic countries, which need to unite to rid the world of dictators.
Protecting Taiwan’s sovereignty is crucial to secure TSMC’s chips for the free world, as its supply chain is firmly established in Taiwan. In this regard, President William (賴清德) has promised to purchase more military inventory from the US by increasing defense spending to more than 3 percent of GDP — higher than the 2.71 percent of NATO countries.
As Lai said: “Taiwan-US cooperation will create a shared win-win outcome.”
When the transactional paradigm delivers win-win deals to make thriving economy and peaceful resolutions, the world would become a better place.
James J. Y. Hsu is a retired professor of theoretical physics.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS