Taiwan’s peaceful transfer of political power offers further evidence that the regime in Beijing is wrong when it suggests democracy is not possible in China.
Taiwan remains an embarrassment to Beijing’s aging leadership who condescendingly assert that market-based democratic traditions are inconsistent with Chinese culture. In the blogosphere Chinese are increasingly asking: “If Taiwan can democratically elect a president, why can’t we?”
Beijing is undergoing an increasingly uneasy leadership change, where not one member of the Chinese power structure is directly elected by the people. A corrupt Chinese Communist Party (CCP) looks increasingly entitled, repressive and cut-off from the Chinese people.
US policymakers need to understand Taiwan’s political and social significance to China’s transition now underway. Failure to do so only serves to re-enforce attitudes among ultra-nationalists in Beijing who would gladly snuff out Taipei’s experiment in freedom. Based on their statements, a growing number of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) hardliners seem to feel that former Chinese chairman Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) famous statement to then-US secretary of state Henry Kissinger four decades ago, that: “We can wait 100 years for Taiwan,” is now outdated.
Rather than engage Taiwan as a partner, whose political and social history offers a useful roadmap to greater democracy at home, Beijing sees Taiwan’s emerging democracy as a threat. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the PLA has pivoted much of its military assets away from China’s northern border and to its east coast instead. We know from experts’ analysis of PLA military planning that a large part of the US$100 billion in annual military expenditures now undertaken is directed at Taiwan-related contingencies.
The loss of Taiwan to Chinese domination would have far-reaching repercussions. From Seoul in the north to Canberra in the south, such a policy retreat would likely raise questions among our Asia-Pacific allies about the US’ Pacific staying power. Some of our old friends might even decide that the time has come to cut their losses and seek an accommodation with Beijing before it is too late.
With control of Taiwan, Beijing would be able to dictate terms of engagement with both Tokyo and Seoul. The PLA Navy would dominate the crucial sea lanes around Taiwan and its seizure would also break the current freedom of navigation in the first island chain off the Asian coast, allowing Beijing to pursue its strategy of denying access to the US Navy.
As China’s air and sea power rapidly expands, it is key that the US approve Taiwan’s request for next generation F-16 jets to replace an aging fleet provided at the end of the Cold War. Taiwan also needs diesel submarines to counter Beijing’s rapidly expanding submarine fleet.
Leaving Taiwan exposed to Beijing’s incessant bullying and potential aggression is not the answer. Inaction on provision of defensive weapons as mandated by the US Congress in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is a prescription for disaster. I have put forward legislation, known as the Taiwan Policy Act, to enhance the TRA and to strengthen our ties with Taiwan.
Beijing seeks to marginalize US strategic and commercial interests in the world’s most economically vibrant region. Any success would have a direct impact on lives of US citizens. Without access to Asian markets, the US economy would decline.
If the 21st century is the “Asian century,” then a democratic Taiwan free of mainland domination remains a lynchpin for curtailing Chinese hegemony over the Asian continent. Thus, the US must stand by Taiwan to ensure our shared strategic and economic interests are protected.
US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen chairs the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
About 6.1 million couples tied the knot last year, down from 7.28 million in 2023 — a drop of more than 20 percent, data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs showed. That is more serious than the precipitous drop of 12.2 percent in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the saying goes, a single leaf reveals an entire autumn. The decline in marriages reveals problems in China’s economic development, painting a dismal picture of the nation’s future. A giant question mark hangs over economic data that Beijing releases due to a lack of clarity, freedom of the press