Recently, anti-Japanese protests have taken place in China's major cities.
Surprisingly, some people in Taiwan have suggested that we shouldn't choose a side in the confrontation between China and the US-Japan alliance.
This is bizarre.
"Choosing a side" basically means supporting a foreign country's policy, or even allying with it.
Although Taiwan and China complement each other economically, they are at loggerheads on military and strategic questions. Anyone can see that the situation will not be resolved for a long time -- and will probably become even worse.
By comparison, Taiwan has normal economic and trade relations with the US and Japan, and does not have any military or strategic disputes at all.
The only possible conflict is the problem of sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. But neither Taiwan nor Japan has any troops deployed on the island or its neighboring islets at the moment.
Besides, the islands are currently governed by Japan in reality, and the Japanese government is unlikely to take the initiative in changing the status quo.
The possibility of a military conflict between Taiwan and Japan does not exist unless Taipei suddenly takes military action.
If conflicts occur between China and the US-Japan alliance, the latter will continue to protect Taiwan even if it maintains a neutral stance.
In contrast, Taiwan can hardly gain much benefit from China. If China is attacked by the US and Japan, can we expect Beijing to have the extra reserves to help us resist political, economic and even military pressure from Washington and Tokyo?
If conflicts occur between Taiwan and China, there is still a possibility that the country may fall into Beijing's hands -- even if the US and Japan make every effort to safeguard it.
Take the Vietnam War, for example. The US actually sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the battlefield, and spent hundreds of billions of US dollars on it.
Although Japan did not mobilize its troops, it allowed the US to use its military bases and indirectly supported the US war.
Today, there is a gap between the strength of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
If Taiwan dithers between taking China or Japan's side in the current dispute, it will be digging its own grave, because the US and Japan may have doubts and become unwilling to support it wholeheartedly.
China is therefore an undesirable side for Taiwan to choose. In fact, it is our potential enemy No. 1.
From a military and strategic perspective, cross-strait relations are akin to a "zero-sum" game.
No matter how smooth their relations, the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are enemies with absolutely irreconcilable differences.
Even if we choose China over Japan, Beijing is still unlikely to withdraw its military threats against Taiwan.
To China, unifying with Taiwan has always been considered a core strategic interest. It will not give up such a strategic interest simply because we curry favor with it or show sincerity to it in certain ways.
On the contrary, Taipei's attitude could incite hostility from Washington and Tokyo.
So the idea of "choosing a side" should not even be an issue in our strategic thinking.
Bill Chang is a former deputy director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Chinese Affairs Department.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS