Many people believe that unifying with China would bring Taiwan peace. That was partially why supporters of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Lien's trip might have managed to revive China's fading hope of annexing Taiwan. The active collaboration of Lien and other pan-blue leaders is giving Beijing the wrong impression that its attempt to annex Taiwan enjoys significant support inside Taiwan. The illusion in turn could encourage, not discourage, Beijing's use of force.
The channel for Beijing to deliver messages to the Taiwanese people directly has been established by Lien's China trip. The first demonstration of this was seen when a KMT official briefed Taiwan's press on the details of a memorandum of understanding between China and the chief of the World Health Organization. With the abundant pro-China media apparatus firmly planted in Taiwan, Beijing might become more confident that it has the means to pave the way for a limited-scale stealth attack. Therefore, it could miscalculate.
That scenario, however, is based on the premise that Beijing pins little hope on peaceful annexation of Taiwan.
Given that 65 percent to 85 percent of Taiwanese people are against any "unification," it might be quite difficult for China to get the process off the ground even with a heavy dose of compulsion. On top of that, Beijing has to consider the international reaction.
Some international powers would respond with deep misgivings, if not vehement opposition, toward coercion-based "unification" -- even if it were non-violent on the surface.
For years, the US' attitude regarding cross-strait interaction has been neutral in the sense that it would not interfere as long as no force is involved.
However, lately, this laissez-faire approach may be undergoing a fundamental reevaluation because of China's unexpectedly rapid military build-up. Reports that China is developing missiles that would be capable of reaching anywhere in the US -- and that China's expansion of its arsenal far exceeds what would be needed in a regional conflict -- have definitely cast doubts on Beijing's "peaceful rising" theory.
Judging from US officials' growing trepidation on the subject of Taiwan's arms procurement, one might be able to deduce that Taiwan's strategic value is on the rise. More specifically, during a recent visit to Taiwan, former US deputy assistant secretary of state Randall Schriver even reaffirmed US President George W. Bush's now famous "whatever it takes" remark, made early in his first term, as being just as valid today. Bush's latest comments, however, have tried to strike a balance.
For now, the US is obliged to block any non-peaceful annexation attempt based on the Taiwan Relations Act. Conversely, Washington has not spelled out the threshold it would tolerate for China's non-forceful compulsion of Taiwan -- which is most likely inversely proportional to the strategic value of Taiwan -- before it would intervene. But the idea that a democratic Taiwan -- on its own volition -- would be willing to be annexed by an authoritarian China would be very difficult for the US to stomach, disregarding its strategic and security implications.
Japan would feel strongly regarding "unification." It's no exaggeration to state that Japan has a vital strategic interest in a democratic Taiwan. Japan would be even more skeptical than the US with respect to an apparently peaceful "unification."
One must therefore come to the conclusion that, for Taiwan, "unification with China" and "peace" could be quite incompatible. In fact, "unification" -- should it ever be installed peacefully or otherwise -- would more than likely mark the beginning of a struggle -- both internally and externally -- to have it reversed. What would then take place would make peace the furthest thing from reality.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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