OpEd: Did Xi accidentally endorse Tsai's re-election?

On its face, this question seems preposterous. After all, the Communist Party of China is dead set to impose its ‘one China’ framework for ‘peaceful unification,’ by force if necessary. How could the leader of China and his party possibly prefer to help re-elect a Taiwan president whose party only accepts a “one China” concept if it is accompanied by a separate and distinct “one Taiwan”?

Hard to believe, and yet, this is precisely what much of the world perceived the net effect to be of Xi Jinping’s January 2nd “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan.”

The New York Times captured global reaction in its January 19 article titled, “Faced With Tough Words From China, Taiwan Rallies Around Its Leader.” The piece leads with this key point:

“Just a few weeks ago, President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan was struggling politically. Her party had lost in key local elections, imperiling her run for a second term next year. But then she got help from an unlikely source: the president of China.”

Over the last two weeks, I have heard a variation of this theme shared around Capitol Hill in DC, among advisors to leaders of US allies, and among friends in the international media. Regardless of what Xi Jinping intended, or how the message was perceived in Taiwan, this judgment now is essentially taken as fact around the world. Xi’s speech directly and almost single-handedly galvanized Tsai’s base and revitalized her bid for re-election.

Interestingly, most of the political and media influencers I spoke with saw the speech as helping Tsai in two distinct ways. First, he handed her an opportunity to respond, with a strength and righteous indignation her supporters had yet to feel in her first term. Second, they saw Xi’s dismissal of the so-called “92 consensus” as a blow to former president Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT.

The fact that the latter point came across to people who work in politics and media beyond Asia surprises me. However, it is a prime example of how external forces can rally or divide your own base, and what the same does to your opposition.

There seem to be several key consensus judgments of the impact of Xi’s remarks, but no one among the international political and media community has been able to discern what Xi intended, or anticipated, the reaction would be. Did Xi intend to divide the KMT and rally the DPP? Did he intend to provoke a round of international sympathy and support for Tsai? Surely not. So what was his intent - beyond simply threatening Taiwan? And what went wrong?

Speculation as to Xi’s motives has come up with a wide variety of suggestions. Xi is under relatively high economic and political pressure at home, and some suggested the value in China of a nationalistic shot fired at Taiwan outweighed whatever response it may provoke in Taiwan or internationally. Others believe his remarks were not too different from New Year’s messages over the years, and Xi was likely surprised by the reactions. Others took a very different view -  Xi deliberately pressed harder in this year’s message because Beijing believed recent Taiwan elections showed Tsai and the DPP on the run, but Xi and his advisors failed to recognize a huge majority of Taiwan voters still oppose even just talk of unification with Beijing under any current terms.

Throughout my career, I have always been advised by mentors, colleagues, and professors never to underestimate Beijing’s knowledge of Taiwan. “After all,” they would say, “it matters a lot more to them than it does to the rest of us, and they have an endless supply of people to gather and assess information.” Their bottom line: “Never begin with the assumption that Beijing’s actions are born out of ignorance about their target.”

I still take that counsel seriously. Applied here, it would seem to lead to one or two conclusions. Either Xi did intend to provoke a domestic and international rally around Tsai, or Xi’s standing is so precarious his domestic calculus outweighed any Taiwan or international considerations. If either or both of these conclusions are true, it presents very profound questions for Taiwan voters to consider as they choose continuity or change in national leadership in 2020.

No permanent victory or defeat in politics

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

As we enter 2019, a new election cycle is underway in both Taiwan and the United States. Since the 2018 midterm elections in the United States and the municipal elections in Taiwan, there has been a great deal of commentary and analysis, with many drawing inferences from the results to size up the prospects for both president’s re-elections in 2020.

While neither president was on the ballot in 2018, in both countries we use these nationwide (but not national) elections to measure the strength and weakness of parties, issues, and leaders. In the US it was a bit of a mixed bag, given that Republicans gained seats in the Senate, but lost their majority in the House and lost a handful of governorships. While somewhat of a split decision, the majority view (which I do not share) is the midterm elections were a referendum on President Trump’s tenure and his party paid the price. There seems to be a similar verdict in Taiwan - local elections nationwide were a rebuke of President Tsai’s leadership and her party paid the price.

These judgments may prove to be true over time, but we won’t know until the 2020 elections are upon us. Until then, there are many factors that give me pause before I draw long term conclusions from these recent results.

A key lesson comes to mind: politics is a continuum and these results only measure a moment in time. Historically, we often see a pendulum effect, with the ruling party losing seats in off-years, only to see the incumbent president win re-election in the next cycle. In the United States, this has happened countless times. In 2010, two years into President Obama’s term, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Wild speculation ensued with regard to what this meant for President Obama’s re-election, which he went on to win two years later.

The mid-1990s may be even more instructive in terms of how this pendulum effect may play out in Taiwan this election cycle. In 1994, President Clinton suffered a massive loss in the wave election that brought Republicans into the House majority for the first time in over 40 years. They also regained control of the Senate majority. Coming out of that cycle there were prominent magazine covers touting Newt Gingrich as “King of the Hill” and others featuring Clinton as the “Incredible Shrinking President.” President Clinton appeared to be doomed.

But then, a few key things changed the narrative and boosted Clinton into a second term. First, there was the terrible domestic terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City. It gave President Clinton an opportunity to draw on raw emotions, be seen as a leader, and somewhat opportunistically to redefine his opponents. Second, there were two budget stand-offs between November 1995 and January 1996. These allowed President Clinton to use the majesty and power of the Oval Office to get the upper hand in terms of public relations, if not on substance, just as his re-election campaign was getting into full swing.

One of the harder exercises in politics is, after a win or a loss, to take an honest assessment of what affected the results. It is a prerequisite to recovery and success. What qualities and candidates were a factor in the loss? What issues were framed best and which were framed poorly? What was your opposition able or unable to do to define you? What issues defined the electorate? What adjustments do you have in mind for the next election cycle to either keep or regain power? The key is not to just wait for the pendulum to swing on its own - it is to decide what you are going to do with your coalition to keep, or regain, your power.

Bill Clinton did these things, but just as important, external events provided him with opportunities that were not knowable in the immediate aftermath of the midterm elections. We do not know the nature or extent of reflection undertaken by President Tsai and the close advisors trying to chart the course for her re-election. But, interestingly, at least one external event has occurred that has allowed her to somewhat change the narrative.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) appears to have read the Taiwan municipal election results as a rebuke not just of President Tsai, but of support for self-determination among Taiwan voters. Perhaps attempting to strike while the iron is hot, Xi Jinping pressed his case for unification, under terms known to be unacceptable to a supermajority in Taiwan, and reminded the Taiwan people that he reserves the use of force to impose Beijing’s will.

In terms of being able to recast impressions of leadership, President Tsai’s response to Xi may have been like President Clinton’s response to the Oklahoma City bombing.  It also provoked a wave of international statements of support for Taiwan, implicitly endorsing her position. However, it is too soon to tell how much to read into recent developments.

It would be a mistake to see political pivots as permanent. In politics, and in life, there are rarely permanent victories or defeats - only momentary waves and inflection points. Parties and leaders go through moments of strength, weakness and realignment. The future belongs to those who are able to adjust and adapt.

Can Taiwan Afford to be Neutral between the US and China?

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

In recent years, many friends have suggested that Taiwan could become the Switzerland of East Asia. This is an idea that comes with many risks of its own, and one that I do not believe Taiwan can afford.

Of course, on the base level, there is very little that Switzerland and Taiwan have in common. Switzerland is a landlocked nation at the heart of Western Europe, sharing borders with multiple major nations. Taiwan is an island nation, off China’s shore, looking out into the Pacific Ocean.

Proponents point to Switzerland’s experience with applying the law of neutrality, codified in the Hague Conventions of October 18, 1907. The law states that neutral countries must:

• refrain from engaging in war

• ensure its own defense

• ensure equal treatment for belligerent states in respect of the exportation of war material

• not supply mercenary troops to belligerent states

• not allow belligerent states to use its territory

(From official Swiss government website: https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/foreign-policy/international-law/neutrality.html)

In return, presumably enforced by other signatories to the conventions, Switzerland, and other neutral countries, sovereignty and way of life are assured against foreign aggression.

The romanticized notion of Switzerland’s successful escape from invasion during WWII typically points to the power of this international neutrality. In reality, very high mountain ranges and amoral (or immoral) dealings in international finance may have played a more decisive role.

There is nearly an endless list of reasons why Switzerland’s model of neutrality is not available to Taiwan. Practically, in order for the Law of Neutrality to apply, a nation must have universally recognized sovereignty. Switzerland does. Taiwan, unfortunately, does not. In fact, unlike Switzerland, where the distribution of power among neighbors was relatively balanced, Taiwan’s sovereignty is contested by the largest, and nearest, power in the region.

But the fatal blow to this idea is the grim reality that over the entire history of the People’s Republic of China, there is not a single instance of the state being restrained by any international convention from use of force against those deemed to be under its jurisdiction. There are many examples to the contrary. Bottom line: there is no piece of paper capable of protecting the people of Taiwan against Chinese attack, any more than the protections that failed the Tibetan people, the Uyghur people, and the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square.

Given these substantive realities, it is quite risky for Taiwan to even entertain the idea of some form of neutrality between a government intent on takeover and the only other government with sufficient potential to deter your aggressor. In 2019, more than any time in years, China is seen less as an economic opportunity but more so as exploitative and aggressive. Economic modernization has strengthened the authoritarian state rather than moderating and reforming the one-party state.

It is entirely understandable that Taiwan citizens would want to explore all possible options to try to escape having to live under such a persistent threat. The give and take of America’s diplomatic and democratic processes may also raise frustrations and concerns from time to time. But loose talk of neutrality between the US and China, especially at a time when US interests are perceived to be particularly threatened by China, runs the risk of undermining decades of work in building support for Taiwan’s freedom and ability to determine its own future. It is extremely unlikely that Japan would see the situation any differently.

Unfortunately, just the exploration of neutrality may leave Taiwan even more alone in having to come to terms with Beijing. I believe that prospect is something a very large majority of Taiwan’s people would want to avoid.

Moderate Healthy Nationalism is a Good Thing

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

In recent years, we have seen a wave of candidates and initiatives around the world that have been characterized as “nationalist” by both proponents and critics. From President Trump’s victory in the United States and the UK’s passage of Brexit to Jair Bolsonaro winning in Brazil’s recent election. Voters appear to be turning toward promises of independence and national pride.

Accusations have flown in the United States that nationalism is racist, un-American, or discriminatory. In reality, the kind of nationalism we are seeing is more consistent with putting the interests of your own nation first, balanced against the forces of globalism that are perceived as having gone too far to the disadvantage of our citizens.

The opposition that many in America claim to nationalism is that it oppresses the less fortunate - it’s racist, sexist, white-supremacist and anti-immigrant. Following the world wars, the visceral shun of extreme nationalism mixed with militarism was rational. The concept that led to the mass murder of millions of people was one that was not appealing to many.

More recently, the left in America has tried to equate even moderate and healthy nationalism with “white nationalism.” They are not the same thing.

For many countries, national identity is based on a shared ethnicity, language or religion. This is not the case in America. For Americans, national identity is based on a shared set of values - regardless of race, gender, birthplace or religion. Nationalism is a pride in those values, and a desire to do what is best for America to ensure those values live on.

In the 2016 campaign, President Trump accurately identified the desire among many in America to have a President who puts America first. Since being in office, the President has lived up to many of the America-first campaign promises that got him elected.

He has pulled us out of multilateral agreements that his supporters saw as unfair to the United States - think the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Paris Climate Accords. He has reset the status quo of trade between nations to ensure the United States is not in unfair trade deals - think the trade war with China. He continues to fight to improve our border security and immigration systems. All while the economy has steadily improved and unemployment rates have gone down.

While the left in America attacks the President at every turn - the Republicans and independents who elected him recognize that the President’s actions have reset the United States’ position in the world. Many feel like he is the first leader in recent years who has put the interest of America above the interest of other nations or international organizations, and to many voters, that is a refreshing change.

The nationalist trend that has taken place around the globe can provide a few key lessons for Taiwan. Taiwan’s identity is based on what it is (a free, democratic country) and what it is not (communist).

But more than that, it is important for Taiwan’s leaders to recognize that they must always focus on putting Taiwan first, with a recognition that other countries will do the same. When interacting with leaders like President Trump, pro-Taiwan policies will not be forthcoming simply as a favor to Taiwan because it is a friendly democracy. There must be a clear benefit to the US in making the deal.

This trend brings to mind the phrase “it is not enough to do good, one must be seen doing good.” President Trump has mastered Twitter to communicate directly with voters. His actions are not hidden behind a sea of speeches and press releases, rather, he shares his agenda in short snippets, to show voters that he is putting America first. This lesson rings true for leaders around the world, including Taiwan. It is not enough to work behind the scenes to accomplish policy gains - the voters must see that.

Putting one’s own country first is something that we should want from our leaders. It is a trend that is growing in the United States and around the world, and one that leaders in Taiwan can make use of and benefit from in the future.

Revival of America as a Force for Good in Asia

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

Last week US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a pivotal speech at the American University in Cairo titled, “A Force for Good: America Reinvigorated in the Middle East.” While the speech was a political and policy counterpoint to the one delivered by former President Barack Obama in 2009, it contains key points that transcend partisanship and the region to which the message was addressed.

Secretary Pompeo covered a great deal of historical and policy ground with regard to America’s role in the region, past and present, speaking candidly from his point of view about our lessons learned, adjustments currently underway, and an upbeat forecast for continued positive coalition building to meet the challenges ahead. To be fair, this is a task to be expected of any effective and dutiful secretary of state, in the role of top executive articulator of a president’s foreign policy.

There are two passages from Pompeo’s Cairo remarks that stood out as particularly relevant to understanding the Trump Administration’s vision for America’s role in the world, informed by an emphasis on realism, reciprocity, and results.

“The U.S. knows that we can’t, and shouldn’t, fight every fight or sustain every economy. No nation wants to be dependent on another. Our aim is to partner with our friends and vigorously oppose our enemies, because a strong, secure, and economically vibrant Middle East is in our national interest, and it’s in yours as well.”

“America has been criticized for doing too much in the Middle East, and we’ve been criticized for doing too little. But one thing we’ve never been is an empire-builder or an oppressor.”

In reading each of these passages, one could just as easily replace “Middle East” with “Asia” or “Indo-Pacific” and the underlying message would be the same. Note the pragmatism about not fighting every fight or sustaining every economy. That is not isolationism. It is a humble acknowledgment of reality. But knowing this, the US still remains actively engaged to “partner with our friends and vigorously oppose our enemies.” That is not a revival of neoconservative interventionism, it is a basic definition of purpose behind coalition building in vital regions, where enemies are less defined by ethnicity or nationality, but more so by dangerous ideologies and coercion (or worse) against those who resist.

The second point rings true as well. While the United States at one point did have a colony in Asia, that exception does not disprove that over two centuries of engagement in Asia, America has always strived to be a unique force for good. This continues to be our goal to this day, with a recognition that America is the only power capable of balancing against the only power in Asia for whom the terms “empire-builder” and “oppressor” most certainly apply: the People’s Republic of China.

It’s easy to forget, among the endless bias and negativity propagated by supposed expert commentators and former officials, that America plays a vital, and positive, role in the region. I strongly support the idea of Secretary Pompeo visiting Asia and giving a similarly titled speech, with a focus on the positive impact America has had there.

Toxic political commentary should not cloud our vision when it comes to the preeminent challenge to our national security and domestic institutions. In the struggle for a secure, prosperous, and free future for the United States’ allies in Asia, neutrality is not an option and isolationism is not an option. Secretary Pompeo’s remarks are a helpful reminder that America remains committed to partnerships with our friends and building coalitions to pass along security, prosperity, and freedom to the next generation.

Why the Immigration Debate Matters

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

Dominating the US news for the last three weeks has been the government shutdown and fight over funding for the border wall. Democrats refuse to fund the wall, President Trump insists on it. Stalemate ensues, and the United States is stuck in the longest government shutdown in history.

The United States fiscal year 2019 budget is 4.407 trillion dollars. The estimated cost of the border wall is 5.7 billion dollars. In essence, Democrats have forced a government shutdown in protest of what would be .1% of the federal budget.

Looked at another way, say your monthly household income is $5,000. You want to buy a sandwich for $6.50. Your spouse would rather not spend the money. Instead of reaching an agreement on whether or not to buy the sandwich, you both decide to quit spending any money. No electrical bills will be paid. No water bills will be paid. No gasoline will be purchased for your car, and no clothing for your kids. In the meantime, you accrue $20 in late fees from the electrical company, who’s still waiting for you to pay your bill. All because you can’t agree on a $6.50 sandwich. This is what Democrats have done to the United States government, and this is what most of the media fails to point out.

While the current conflict facing the United States is purely focused on whether or not to build a border wall, the underlying issue is the immigration system as a whole. Building the border wall is not an anti-immigration policy - it is an anti-illegal immigration policy.

When the United States was founded, it was a country that was different. The United States is not defined by ethnicity or family line. The United States is built on a set of ideals - democracy, freedom and independence. Taiwan has these same values, and its immigration policy should reflect that.

While Taiwan does not face all of the same issues as the United States when it comes to immigration - as an island nation there are no borders for immigrants to walk across - it has its own host of policy challenges.

There is the practical nature of keeping track of who is coming and going. If a sovereign country does not have an enforced border, it is not sovereign. US Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said “To me, it’s very simple. Border security is national security.” This is especially important when dealing with China, but sovereignty within a country is dependent on a knowledge of who is coming and going.

Equally important, with a population growth of less than 1%, and brain drain from Taiwan to China and other countries around the world, Taiwan’s immigration system should be tailored to attract the kind of workers needed to fill out its workforce. In the United States, this is a two-fold challenge, attracting high-skilled workers for science and technological jobs, and attracting workers for jobs in agriculture and other more labor-intensive industries.

Above all, a country’s immigration system says a great deal about the country’s identity. Taiwan stands in the region as an example of democratic and free-market values put to work. These values are shared with the United States, and they give both countries the challenge of creating a safe and secure immigration system, but espouses the values both countries hold so dear.

With the presidential election coming just next year, this issue is front and center in US political debate. One can agree or disagree on the issues that have brought the topic to the forefront of national debate, but it is good for our country to have our people engaged in the debate rather than leaving it to specialists and special interests in Washington.

Despite the economic, security and humanitarian interests, the need for reform, and an upcoming presidential contest, Taiwan’s debate on immigration is much lower profile.

Immigration policy may be one of the under-appreciated tools by which Taiwan can identify more in line with the interests and values of modern democracies and define an identity distinct from the ethnic focus of China. As an added benefit, it could sustain Taiwan’s workforce needs, social safety net, and national security.

Half of Something can be Better than All of Nothing

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

In politics, gradualism, deal-making and compromise get a bad rap. They are seen as weak and unprincipled. In the United States, we experience this in every level of politics, where neither side will give an inch for fear that they will lose their base. The end result is gridlock.

There is a time to stand firm in one’s beliefs and principles. But there is also a time to make a deal, and when important issues are at stake, remember at times half of something can be better than all of nothing.

I’ve experienced this at nearly every point in my life, in policy at the White House and politics at the Republican Party. When we care strongly about issues at stake, it is easy to have an all or nothing mentality. But when this mentality results in no progress year after year, it’s time for a new approach.

On issues where sides are so far apart, it’s unlikely to get everything you’ve worked and hoped for. The next logical question becomes “what portion of what I want can I get today, tomorrow or next year so I can continue to move in the right direction?” Eventually, each individual step will add up, and accumulate toward the larger goal.

For those of us who believe strongly in our core principles, this can feel bad, like you have compromised your beliefs. In reality, a gradual approach can, and often does, get you closer to your end goal than a hard-line stance ever will. Accomplishing a key percentage of what you are after can be better than getting nothing, and sometimes, that is the only option on the table.

This lesson rings true in the United States’ hyper-partisan climate, where neither side is able to compromise on key issues facing the nation. But it equally applies to Taiwan’s position in the world.

There are certain things unlikely to happen in the near term, no matter the effort Taiwan and it’s supporters put into advocacy and lobbying. One such objective is membership in the United Nations. Another is full diplomatic recognition by many of the major countries around the world.

In light of President Xi Jinping’s recent comments, and China’s aggressive economic espionage, military tactics and territorial claims, many countries and leaders are turning to Taiwan and looking to make a deal. This doesn’t mean that in one fell swoop Taiwan will gain full diplomatic recognition, but there are concrete steps to improve relations with Japan, the United States, and other countries who support Taiwan’s right to self-determination.

These are not concessions, but simply a more gradual approach to the same end goal. Even without a formal free trade agreement, Taiwan can work to expand trade with allies. It can partake in exchanges with students from around the globe, promoting Taiwan’s culture. Taiwan can collaborate with the United States and other nations regarding cybersecurity and intellectual property, proving that they are a safe alternative to China for direct foreign investment.

These gradual steps not only help Taiwan reach its goals, but they show the rest of the world Taiwan is willing to work together and reach accommodations on issues that matter. In politics and policy, results matter.

Uptick in US Support for Taiwan

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

Keen observers in Taiwan have noted a significant uptick in recent US statements of support. Some have seen the Trump administration as generally more favorable to Taiwan, given the President-elect’s willingness to receive President Tsai’s congratulatory phone call and given the President’s willingness to sign significant pro-Taiwan legislation into law without modification or caveat. Notwithstanding that general trend, with which I agree, the source and content of recent statements has indeed been notable.

First, the spokesman for the US National Security Council on January 5 tweeted, “The US rejects the threat or use of force to compel the people of Taiwan. Any resolution of Cross-Strait differences must be peaceful and based on the will of the [people] on both sides.” He continued, “Beijing should stop its coercion [and] resume dialogue [with] the democratically-elected administration on Taiwan.”

This strong statement was echoed by a spokesperson for AIT adding, “As we have said many times before, Taiwan is a democratic success story, a reliable partner and a force for good in the world.” Note the phrase, “force for good,” was a key message in US Secretary of State Pompeo’s January 10 Cairo remarks, reminding leaders in the Middle East that the US has been a unique force for good in their region and around the world. This reference puts Taiwan in good company and should be understood as a meaningful compliment.

On the source of the original statement, some have asked whether it is significant that it came from the NSC spokesman. It was a little unusual that it came via Twitter, but it is not unusual for statements of administration policy in the national security realm to come from the NSC. In fact, it was President Obama’s NSC spokesman, speechwriter, and deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes who somewhat broke the mold as the most prolific and authoritative spokesperson for that administration on national security.

A White House policy statement does take precedence over a statement from a cabinet agency in terms of a statement of administration policy. Whether from the White House press secretary or from the NSC spokesman, it has the same effect. And the fact that statements of administration policy from the White House have been relatively few in this administration, this one stands out all the more.

Understanding the significance of this statement, the natural follow on question is, why now? What motivated the White House to take this on rather than leaving it to the State Department or AIT alone? The simplest and most direct answer: China. The aggressive actions and statements from Beijing, especially in recent years under Xi Jinping, drove US Vice President Pence to issue his stark and strategic critique of the Communist Party of China’s role in it’s own country, in the world, and within the US itself. Add to that the aggressive tone of Xi’s New Year message to “Taiwan compatriots,” clearly intended to pressure Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen in advance of her campaign for re-election, and it is understandable why the White House decided to issue a strong statement of support for Taiwan and rebuke Beijing’s aggressive posture.

Over multiple US administrations, from Clinton to Trump, the US has issued statements calling for cross-Strait dialogue and peaceful resolution of differences. There are two elements that are different about the current statement from the Trump White House. First, it unequivocally places blame on the PRC side for current tension and hostility. That is significant. Second, it calls on Beijing to resume dialogue with the “democratically-elected administration on Taiwan.” That is more significant. It is essentially pressing Beijing to recognize the existence and legitimacy of a democratically-elected government in Taipei with which the US itself does not have official diplomatic relations.

This is a major step in the direction of common sense and a peaceful future. No more pretending. No indirect negotiation via non-profit organizations. No misdirection by way of party to party negotiations. If peace, prosperity, and Taiwan’s democratic way of life are to be preserved, the only legitimate channel for negotiation is directly with the government leadership elected by and accountable to the people of Taiwan.

The only point I would question, even criticize, in this otherwise excellent White House statement is the notion that any resolution of cross-Strait differences must be based on the will of the people “on both sides.” That is ridiculous. The Communist Party dictatorship in Beijing doesn’t even respect the will of the people on its own side. No way should we suggest it would be legitimate for the unelected leadership in Beijing to thwart the will of the free people of Taiwan, simply because the Communist Party already compromises the freedom of 1.3 billion Chinese people.

The only rational and moral US position should be that cross-Strait differences be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the Taiwan people. Period.

Given the absolutely incendiary statement by PLA Lt. Gen. He Lei that followed the White House tweet, calling independence advocates “thieves,” “scum,” and “war criminals,” perhaps PRC belligerence will push the US further in the direction of even better policy towards Taiwan.

Major Review of China Likely in New Congress

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

You wouldn’t know it, based on current headlines, but the United States Congress is poised to conduct a critical review of the full spectrum of US policy issues related to China, on a scale not seen since the normalization of diplomatic relations with Beijing 40 years ago.

In the immediate term, all eyes are fixed on negotiations related to the government shutdown and measures to secure our southern border. The disposition of US forces deployed to Syria and Afghanistan also is a near term focus. But soon enough, once the full committees and relevant subcommittees have settled in and conducted initial business, the new Congress is likely to take a deep dive on China.

By now it is not news that President Trump has broken with conventional (or establishment) approaches for dealing with China. He accepted President Tsai’s congratulatory phone call as President-elect. He launched missiles into Syria while serving chocolate cake at his Mar-a-Lago resort to Chinese leader Xi Jinping. And of course he has challenged China to rebalance its trade relations with the United States in ways no recent US president has really considered, much less implemented.

Typically a new US president whose party controls the majority in the US Senate would have a collaborative relationship with committee leaders when it comes to confirmation of personnel and articulation of policy. That was not so for President Trump during the 115th Congress, covering the first two years of his administration, thanks to the very rocky personal relationship between the President and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R - Tennessee). Not only did Senator Corker spar with the President publicly and privately, Senator Corker’s approach to foreign policy fell well within the mainstream of bipartisan conventional thinking. President Trump, however, was elected based on the promise to disrupt and reset major fundamentals of US foreign and defense policies.

Now in the 116th Congress, Senate committee assignments have been made, and with Senator Corker gone, there is a new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jim Risch (R - Idaho). Senator Risch has a much more cooperative and businesslike relationship with President Trump, and he has a somewhat more interesting committee to work with. On the Republican side, an additional member was added, and the committee now has five former candidates for the Republican presidential nomination (Rubio, Cruz, Graham, Romney, and Paul). That guarantees higher profile news coverage of foreign relations committee proceedings, and it also presents the new chairman with the pleasure of working with some very strong personalities with distinct views on US foreign policy.

For those who follow Asia, and especially Taiwan policy, Senator Cory Gardner (R - Colorado) is chair of the Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy. That is great news, as Senator Gardner has been a reliable champion for policy that recognizes the value of close ties with Taiwan and the comprehensive challenges posed by the People’s Republic of China. The inclusion of cybersecurity policy within this subcommittee also is strategically significant.

As we progress through 2019, most expect the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to take up unconfirmed nominations, such as the US ambassador to the United Nations, and have some scene setting hearings about US global priorities and competing challenges. From there, expect the full committee and Senator Gardner’s subcommittee to focus on three things: China, China, China…

Many have noted the key anniversaries driving discussion and review of US-China relations as well as US-Taiwan relations. We have the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act and normalization of diplomatic ties with the PRC. June 4th marks 30 years since the Tiananmen Square Massacre. And it is 70 years this October since Mao Zedong broke with China’s political and cultural past, split with the Republic of China, and established the People’s Republic of China, with Communist one-party rule sustained to this day.

Beyond these anniversaries, however, it has been actions taken by China, under the unexpectedly provocative leadership of Xi Jinping, that is driving leaders in the US to question and consider alternatives to the assumptions that have guided US policy towards China since the Nixon-Kissinger detente in the 1970s. From revived Maoism, to creepy AI surveillance, to blatant intellectual property theft, to building and militarization of islands, to coercion of Taiwan, to interference in our own domestic institutions, China has provoked a corrective response in the US (and other countries) that is just in its initial stages of development.

As the hearings unfold and as the Trump administration continues negotiations on trade and North Korea, expect there to be constructive foreign policy fireworks in the Congress, as we have the first real debate over China policy in nearly half a century. Also expect part of that debate to include a review and enhancement of US relations with Taiwan. A key question for Taiwan to consider as the US engages in this great debate: Is Taiwan itself prepared to conduct a similar thorough and public review of its policy towards China, with an eye to bringing it into line with the realities we face in 2019?

Making Friends in Politics and Diplomacy

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

My former boss, the Vice President of the United States taught me an important lesson when I first ran for the legislature in 2014. I worked for him for the first 5 years of the Bush administration, and we kept in touch over the years. When I decided to run, I called the Vice President and asked for his support. He offered an endorsement, but then warned me “don’t make it hard for me to be your friend.” This advice has stuck with me to this day.

At first, I was a bit taken aback. I was surprised, and it seemed like an unusual thing to say. I did not fully understand what he was telling me. He continued to explain - I was not the only person he knew in Idaho politics. He thought I would do a fine job in the legislature, but I should be mindful of the impact my words and actions may have on his relationships with others. It was important I did not put him in the awkward position of having to choose a side or otherwise compromise his friendship with those he values.

This was advice I tried, albeit not always perfectly, to follow, and it is advice that applies relations among people as well as among nations. Whether a leader in Taiwan or a friend of Taiwan, we all need to conduct ourselves, implement policies and treat allies around the world in a way that makes it easy for others to be our friends.

Many around the world - leaders in government and community - support Taiwan’s democracy, security and it’s right of self-determination. If they enter the fray and advocate for this core principle, it is important to behave in a way that will make it easy - and justified - to sustain their support.

In business, this manifests itself in creating a climate that is easy and welcoming for global companies, and working together with countries around the world to prevent intellectual property theft, as was done a few months ago when the United States Department of Justice and Taiwanese Ministry of Justice cooperated to indict United Microelectronics Corp. and others for targeting Micron’s trade secrets.

In government, this means being open - even suggesting agreements between nations that benefit not only Taiwan, but also the nation with which the agreement is being made. It also means, as Taiwan has done in the past, supporting democracy, the free market, and countries that have shown support for Taiwan.

In Taiwan’s tricky position globally, it needs as many friends - countries, leaders and average citizens around the world - as possible to support it’s right of self-determination.

Taiwan’s journey to independence has been, and continues to be, dependent on a broad coalition of supporters. With an increasing amount of scrutiny surrounding China’s malicious trade practices and aggressive actions, it has become easier to broaden this coalition. It is important there is always room for more to join, but to remember in an effort to win some, it is equally important to not make it hard for others to be a friend.