Trump：Taiwan's Problems？ Not My Problems.

The most dramatic moment of Trump's China visit didn't happen in Beijing. It happened after he left.

During Trump's tour of the Temple of Heaven, reporters pressed him repeatedly on Taiwan. He deflected every question with a single line: "China is beautiful."

But once his visit concluded on May 15, the evasion ended. That evening, Foreign Minister Wang Yi summarized the visit with a pointed declaration: "We sensed that the US side understands China's position on Taiwan, takes China's concerns seriously, and — like the international community — does not recognize or accept Taiwan moving toward independence." At the time, Wang Yi's words seemed like a one-sided claim. Then Trump confirmed every word. 

Fox News released an interview on May 16 in which anchor Bret Baier put the question bluntly: "After meeting with Xi Jinping, should people in Taiwan feel more safe or less safe?" Trump's answer was telling. "Neutral. This has been going on for years," he said. Then came the pivot. "I will say this: I'm not looking to have somebody go independent. And, you know, we're supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war. I'm not looking for that."

Trump went further. "I want them to cool down. I want China to cool down. We don't want war. If you kept it the way it is, I think China is [going to] be OK with that. But we're not looking to have somebody say, ‘Let's go independent because the United States is backing us.'"

These remarks mark a significant break from decades of US policy. Washington had long maintained strategic ambiguity on Taiwan — avoiding direct comment on independence and simply calling for the status quo to be preserved. Trump's statement differs on two fronts. First, he explicitly said the US does not want to see Taiwan move toward independence and does not support it. Second, he made clear the US does not want to fight a war over Taiwan.

Arms sales proved equally contentious. Aboard Air Force One after departing Beijing, reporters raised the USD 14 billion arms sale to Taiwan. Trump said the US would consult "the people currently governing Taiwan" before making a decision soon. He did not mention Lai Ching-te by name — referring to him only as "the people currently governing Taiwan."

A reporter pressed back. Under the assurances President Reagan gave Taiwan in 1982, the US committed not to consult China on arms sales to Taiwan — yet that was precisely what appeared to be happening. Trump was unapologetic. "1982 was a long time ago," he said. "I certainly mentioned the arms sales to Taiwan with President Xi — we did discuss it, obviously. That's very detailed. And I'll make a decision."

Trump's Taiwan stance carries implications on several levels. The first is choreography. Trump waited until he had left Beijing before publicly opposing Taiwan independence — avoiding the awkward spectacle of being hounded by reporters in China about abandoning Taiwan. The timing appears coordinated between Washington and Beijing in advance. That explains why Wang Yi pre-announced that "the US does not recognize or accept Taiwan moving toward independence." Wang Yi said it first; Trump confirmed it after.

The second implication is commercial. Trump is a businessman, and his opposition to Taiwan independence is a bargaining chip for greater trade concessions. Both sides announced a trade deal and the establishment of a "Trade Council" to manage bilateral commerce — yet China has yet to publicize any figure for purchases of American goods. Beijing is holding back that announcement, waiting for Trump to take a definitive stance on Taiwan and resolve the arms sale question. Trump delivered his part. The US can now expect its reward.

The third implication is strategic — and its impact is immediate. Trump's remarks have dramatically narrowed the space for Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party to pursue independence. By saying he doesn't want to fight a war over Taiwan, Trump is effectively declaring: "Taiwan's problems are not my problems." That position runs directly counter to Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae's assertion that "a Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency". The fallout does not stop with the pro-independence camp in Taiwan. Takaichi Sanae now finds herself in an extremely awkward and vulnerable position.

The US today follows an "America First" policy — an isolationist course in which American interests come before all else. Those who serve as Washington's pawns will ultimately find themselves discarded. In today's world, it is China and the United States who call the shots. China may not want to be part of a "G2" arrangement, but in reality, that is precisely what it has become.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

American officials used to preach the "rules-based international order" at every turn. That phrase now sounds like a punchline. Add one word and it tells the truth: an international order based on American rules.

The World Cup has produced a scandal, and the United States is at the center of it. In the Round of 32 on July 1, the US beat Bosnia and Herzegovina 2-0. But star striker Folarin Balogun stepped on an opponent's heel and picked up a red card. FIFA rules say a red card triggers a one-match ban. That should have kept Balogun out of the Round of 16 clash with Belgium on July 6.

The New York Times reports that Donald Trump got personally involved. He called FIFA President Gianni Infantino the same day. Trump argued the red card was controversial and pressed FIFA to reconsider the suspension.

FIFA folded, but with a twist. On July 5, the governing body confirmed Balogun had violated Articles 14 and 26 of its Disciplinary Code and handed down a one-match ban. Then it invoked Article 27, which allows disciplinary measures to be suspended in full or in part, to defer the ban for a year. Balogun was free to keep playing through the rest of the tournament.

The backlash was immediate and global. Trump, unmoved by the criticism, thanked FIFA for making the "correct decision" and for "correcting a grave injustice."

Belgium did not take it quietly. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot, a former referee himself, said he had spent his career upholding fair rulings. He put it bluntly: "If a phone call truly underpins this incomprehensible decision, then it amounts to undermining the most fundamental rules of football and sport." Belgium's head coach, Rudi Garcia, was even sharper. "I didn’t know that July 5 was equal to April 1 at FIFA," he said, adding that his complaint wasn't about defending Belgium or attacking FIFA. It was about "defending in football".

Other national teams piled on. England manager Thomas Tuchel asked the question everyone was thinking: "Where does this precedent begin, and where does it end?" His point cuts to the core of the scandal. Power and influence can now override sporting judgment, and a single phone call from a global superpower was enough to erase the idea of fair competition.

Maybe football still has a sense of justice. On July 6, Balogun started despite his dirty play, but Belgium still thrashed the United States 4-1. The score itself felt like a curse, a brutal callback to the tournament's own April Fool's farce.

There was a time when the United States looked both powerful and admirable, a country that was simply always right. I grew up watching American Westerns, the kind starring Clint Eastwood, where heroic cowboys gunned down "Indians" cast as savage and brutal. Even the word "Indians" carries that discrimination baked in, reducing Native Americans to "redskins". Those films erased a brutal history: European colonizers massacring Indigenous peoples across the Americas with superior weapons.

Seize the land, wipe out the people, then cast yourself as the hero. American ideology in a nutshell. Turning bloody history into entertainment and exporting it to the world is something only the United States has pulled off this well, and Hong Kong has not been spared its influence.

At the height of American power, even scandals got repackaged as virtues, seamless and airtight. That is no longer the case. As US power declines and its position weakens, the cracks are showing everywhere. A president meddling in a football ruling has now become global news. Similar things likely happened before, when America's power was unquestioned, but back then nobody dared expose them.

Lo Wing-hung