The past few years have served as a lesson to expect the unexpected. Despite expert warnings about the inevitability of a global pandemic, COVID-19 still caught the world unawares. Russia’s attack on Ukraine seemed to send us collectively careening further out of control, as few dared to believe that a hot war in Europe was likely. Now with Hamas and Israel locked in a brutal conflict, it is beginning to feel like none of the world’s flashpoints are to remain cool for long — Taiwan leading the list.
If this portrayal resonates with you, you would not be alone. Even before Hamas’ attack, the idea of a “polycrisis” was beginning to gain traction. Attendees of the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year favored the term coined in the 1970s to describe the interaction between disparate crises “such that the overall impact far exceeds the sum of each part.” Global anxieties were already trained on Taiwan, but with large-scale conflicts now raging in Palestine as well as Ukraine, a cross-strait conflict seems many times more likely than before.
Media have locked on to the concern, asking US officials how Washington is to handle the compounding crises. US President Joe Biden on Friday last week countered with a US$105 billion ask from Congress that combines aid for Israel and Ukraine. It also includes US$2 billion for Taiwan and Indo-Pacific security, bundling two conflicts with efforts to deter another, thereby inadvertently lending credence to the public expectation of conflict. In Taipei last week, American Institute in Taiwan Chair Laura Rosenberger also assured Taiwan that US support would not be affected amid fears of taut resources.
As tempting as it is to view global conflict as an inevitable collective, a flare-up in one place does not necessitate a total conflagration. Each actor has their own set of desires, concerns and cost-benefit analyses, Beijing included. It appears to be positioning itself carefully.
After Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7, Beijing has remained self-consciously neutral, declining to condemn Hamas as the aggressor and instead calling on “all relevant parties to remain calm, exercise restraint and immediately end the hostilities.” State media also said that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has offered to broker talks on a two-state solution. It is only the latest of China’s efforts to establish itself as a global mediator, after in March brokering a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and on multiple occasions throwing its name in the ring as an option to facilitate talks between Russia and Ukraine.
In global politics, Beijing wishes to present itself as a great power alternative to the US. To do so, it needs to be viewed as a sober and reasonable actor that speaks on behalf of countries that have been ignored and condemned by those calling the shots until now. Playing by the rules while bending them to its wishes is how China has gotten this far, and there appears to be no immediate reason why it should change its playbook by starting a divisive conflict.
It is also important to remember that China itself is not a monolith. Al-Jazeera in an article published on Friday stressed that even within China’s military, not everyone believes the West to be the primary enemy, nor does everyone think the country should be “preparing for future conflicts that it might not win.” Xi has inadvertently confirmed this sentiment by instituting indoctrination campaigns and removing key leaders — including former Chinese minister of national defense Li Shangfu (李尚福) — which the reporter’s sources said they do not think are fully working. As much as Xi is trying to consolidate his power, it appears he still has a ways to go.
From what is known about Xi and his ambitions, everyone recognizes the causes for worry, but little is said about the causes for restraint. As the “polycrisis” feels more salient than ever, it is important to remember that no crisis is inevitable with the right preparation and balance.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS