As the local media continue to ponder over the events in Kabul, many have rightly pointed out the folly of comparing Afghanistan with Taiwan. Culturally, politically, economically and geographically, the two countries are poles apart. Nevertheless, the hasty withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, and the country’s return to rule under the oppressive Taliban regime, has ignited a debate within Taiwan over whether the US can be relied upon to come to its defense.
On Tuesday last week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) wrote on Facebook: “I want to tell everyone that Taiwan’s only option is to make ourselves stronger, more united and more resolute in our determination to protect ourselves.”
“It is not an option for us to do nothing ... and just rely on other people’s protection,” the president wrote.
It was an uncharacteristically forthright intervention by Tsai, designed to ram home an important home truth to the Taiwanese public: The events in Afghanistan demonstrate that Washington will eventually lose patience with any US protectorate or ally that cannot stand on its own two feet or is not prepared to fight for its own survival.
Moreover, Taiwan cannot assume that this or any future US administration would muster sufficient political support at home to place US troops in harm’s way to defend a far-flung nation about which the average American knows very little.
As Tsai said, Taiwan must improve its defense autonomy. Taiwanese politicians and military planners can no longer assume that the nation only needs to hold out against China for a couple of days and US carrier strike groups would sail over the horizon to the rescue. Not only might this be militarily impossible, given China’s investment in anti-access area denial capabilities — it might also be politically impossible.
If Taiwan were perceived to be skimping on its defense, causing the military balance across the Taiwan Strait to tip categorically in favor of China, a future US administration might determine that Taiwan is a lost cause, and scale down its costly naval and air force presence in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, which provides an important deterrence against Chinese aggression.
Were Beijing to call Washington’s bluff and launch an invasion of Taiwan, to a US president staring down the barrel of a gun, a tactical retreat to shore up the defenses of the more populous and larger economies of Japan and South Korea might seem like an appealing option. Taiwan could become this generation’s Czechoslovakia: a sacrificial morsel of red meat tossed to China in a futile attempt to satiate its voracious appetite.
Taiwan’s geostrategic value appears unassailable. Like a cork stopping a bottle, Taiwan’s position in the first island chain effectively contains China’s navy. However, everything in the world has a price. If Beijing makes the price of defending Taiwan too high for Washington to stomach — and if the US has successfully developed its own advanced semiconductor production — then all bets are off.
It cannot be a coincidence that a source within the Ministry of National Defense last week disclosed a plan to inject an additional NT$200 billion (US$7.16 billion) into indigenous missile defense capabilities to accelerate the mass production of precision and long-range missiles, including hypersonics. This is an astute move that would furnish the military with a potent asymmetric deterrent ahead of schedule, and signal to Washington that Taiwan is serious about defending itself.
Taiwan is a mature democracy that has come of age and must now stand on its own two feet. Afghanistan is an object lesson of a US protectorate that failed to get its house in order. Taiwan must not make the same mistake.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
RSS