In the face of China's growing military threat, President Chen Shui-bian (
The first is to ensure that "the democracy of Taiwan -- a core member of the world's community of democracies -- is not threatened or destroyed by China through non-peaceful means." The second is to "join with the other members of the global `community of democracies' in assisting non-democratic nations, such as China, to develop democracy." The third is "to explore ways to normalize relations and resume dialogue with China under a peace and stability framework for cross-strait interaction, thereby promoting stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region."
This "new balance" is a framework being promoted by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government, and it is based on the twin tenets of Taiwanese democracy and cross-strait peace. In the past, the cross-strait issue has been confined to the unification-independence debate.
During the rule of Chiang kai-shek (
In the Chiang era, the cross-strait issue was viewed as an internal matter for China, but under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) it evolved into what he called "special state-to-state" relations. From this point on, the power struggle between the KMT and the CCP morphed into something altogether different -- from a battle for who would rule all of China, to a fight over Taiwan's sovereignty.
The fundamental nature of China-Taiwan relations has now changed. China should now treat Taiwan as an independent nation of equal status. This is the only way it can comprehensively resolve the ongoing conflict and establish a structure for good relations.
Unfortunately, Chinese leaders are still stuck in outmoded ideas of a power struggle with Taiwan. China has proposed numerous absurd policies under the "one China" paradigm in their efforts to appeal to the Taiwanese people. At the same time, Beijing is expanding its military and enhancing its deployments in an effort to force Taiwan's submission through the threat of attack.
Most worrying is that the international community -- whether because of a misunderstanding of history or because they have succumbed to Chinese pressure -- is unable to see the real situation in the Taiwan Strait, and continues to see the cross-strait issue as a power struggle. As a result, Taiwan's ability to survive in the international community is undermined.
The concept of a new power balance in the Strait breaks through the "one China" lie by telling the international community that the reality of the situation is that there is one country on each side of the Strait. It also identifies Taiwan's sovereignty and independence with its democracy by highlighting the difference between a system of savage communism and a civilized liberal democracy, and stressing that the two countries have no jurisdiction over each other.
In other words, the conflict between China and Taiwan involve not only a struggle over sovereignty, but also a contradiction between communism and democracy. China's threat to Taiwan is a threat to all democratic countries. Moreover, China's missiles can already reach India, Russia, the entire US, Australia and New Zealand. This is proof that China's rise is not peaceful, but rather a serious threat to global stability.
We cannot deny the great imbalance in national power between Taiwan and China. Taiwan must side with democratic countries such as the US, Japan and the EU member states to be able to resist China's ambition to annex Taiwan.
When Chen proposed the concept of a new power balance, he linked Taiwanese democracy to cross-strait peace, and tied Taiwanese security to the development and stability of democratic countries around the world. This is praiseworthy. His goal in proposing this concept in the face of China's military threat was not only to defend Taiwan, but to become a pillar of strength for democratic states around the world who are also resisting communist totalitarianism.
Whether we look to history or international law, Taiwan's sovereignty and independence are undeniable facts. Given Taiwan's disadvantages, economic development and a more robust national defense remain the only ways to guarantee that our sovereignty will not be violated.
Translated by Perry Svensson and Ian Bartholomew
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS