The rumblings prompted by US President Donald Trump’s re-election soon gathered force. First came tariffs and threats of territorial annexation; then the greater shocks of US Vice President J.D. Vance’s Valentine’s Day massacre of European values and Trump’s enthusiastic amplification of Kremlin lines on Ukraine.
On Monday came another seismic moment. For more than a decade, the UN Security Council has been largely paralyzed by the split between the five permanent members — Russia and China on one side; the US, France and the UK on the other. This time, when the US brought a resolution calling for an end to the war in Ukraine on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion, it did not criticize Moscow, demand its withdrawal or back Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The result was that China and Russia backed the resolution — while the UK and France, having failed to temper it, abstained.
Earlier, even Beijing had chosen to abstain rather than reject a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Moscow as the aggressor in Ukraine. It was passed overwhelmingly, with the backing of 93 states. Yet the US joined Russia in voting against it — along with Belarus, North Korea, Syria and a handful of others.
“These are not our friends,” Republican Senator John Curtis wrote on X.
The post-1945 order is beyond repair while Trump occupies the White House. French President Emmanuel Macron’s charm and deftness papered over the problems somewhat when he became the first European leader to meet the US president since his re-election. (British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, not noted for his nimbleness or charisma, was likely to find the task somewhat harder yesterday.) The French president was adroit in flattering Trump even as he told the truth. However, it is not surprising that he failed to make any real progress in closing the gap. Those are not cracks in the transatlantic relationship, but a chasm.
A committed Atlanticist such as Christian Democratic Union leader Friedrich Merz, on course to shortly become the German chancellor, is compelled to urge independence from the US, because “the Americans, at any case the Americans in this administration, do not care much about the fate of Europe.” He warned that European leaders might not be able to talk about NATO in its current form by June. The problem is not only what Trump might do, but what he might not. NATO is built on the conviction that countries would stand by the commitments they make. That confidence cannot exist while Trump is president.
When Starmer told members of parliament on Tuesday that “Here we are, in a world where everything has changed,” he was commenting on Russian aggression, but everyone understood the real shift underlying his remarks. To note, as he did, that the US-UK alliance has survived countless external challenges was not quite a vote of confidence. It tacitly acknowledged that the threat this time is internal.
The ground is rocking beneath Europe’s feet. It must brace itself for further shocks. In place of the post-World War II order, Trump envisages a world where alliances are no more than empty words, and great powers bluff and bully their way through. Bilateral meetings have their purpose — they might offer minimal respite and buy a little time — but it would require common will to defend the interests of European states. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk suggested that European leaders would be meeting in London at the weekend to discuss security. Their best hope of standing firm is by standing together.
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