A package of four laws that provide US$95 billion in security-related aid to Ukraine, Israel and Indo-Pacific countries including Taiwan has been enacted by both chambers of the US Congress and signed into law by US President Joe Biden.
Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan have voiced their gratitude, while EU and NATO member states and other democratic countries have also signaled their approval. Meanwhile, those in power in China, Russia and Palestine have condemned the move.
This political dividing line coincides with those seen across the world in recent years. Similar divisions have recently been seen in relation to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s conflicts with Hamas and Iran, and of course the Taiwan Strait.
The simultaneous appearance of Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan on the list of recipients of US foreign aid illustrates the current geopolitical dynamics and hotspots of geopolitical risk.
There is a high degree of consensus about aid to Taiwan in the US administration and Congress, and the US public also generally supports it. In comparison, there are more varied attitudes among US political parties and the public with regard to Ukraine and Israel, which are currently at war.
Toward the end of this year, the US is to hold a presidential election that is to be the second time Biden and former US president Donald Trump run against each other. Other nations’ leaders are apprehensive about any changes that the election might bring to current US policies and are preparing for any eventuality.
No matter what changes might lie ahead, it appears that the post-Cold War period and the associated trend of globalization, which have prevailed since the 1990s, are gradually disappearing.
The COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war in Ukraine, Israel’s conflicts with Hamas and Iran, along with the threat from China in the East China Sea, Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, keep reminding everyone that the relatively peaceful atmosphere of the post-Cold War period is irretrievably lost and the carnival of globalization has lost its luster.
During the Cold War, the economies of the two major camps were largely insulated from one another, but globalization caused them to become mutually embedded and interdependent. Consequently, multinational corporations invested in relatively profitable countries. This economic reality is sure to cause various countries’ habitual policies to persist for some time.
China, which was the engine of the global economy for a long time, has over the past five years or so lost the trust of the world’s democracies and stirred up sharp geopolitical confrontations. Consequently, overseas investors have been gradually withdrawing from China, causing its economy to start going downhill. China’s status as the workshop and market of the world has diminished as the main Western countries recalibrate.
In addition, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) overall political line has turned sharply to the left, with repercussions that include excess productive capacity and product dumping, which could have the effect of spreading China’s economic malaise to other countries.
The contrasting reactions that Washington’s US$95 billion overseas aid package has drawn from around the world reflect the fact that the world is developing in a bipolar direction.
While Biden works on forming a democratic alliance, Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin are building an authoritarian axis. The two sides are competing to either preserve or change the international order. They are forming teams and preparing to play hardball if they have to. De-risking and “coopetition” are still en vogue buzzwords, but no form of cooperation between members of the different camps can any longer conceal their active or passive choice to stand on one side or the other.
The close cooperation between China and Russia has enabled them not only to withstand US-initiated sanctions, but also to use trade interests to create divisions among Western countries.
For example, French President Emmanuel Macron said that Europe must avoid getting caught up in any conflict between the US and China over Taiwan.
Similarly, Lee Jae-myung, leader of South Korea’s biggest opposition party — the Democratic Party of Korea — which won a big majority of seats in the country’s April 10 legislative elections, said that the government of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol is unnecessarily antagonizing China to the detriment of trade relations between the two countries.
There is no need for South Korea to get involved in the Taiwan Strait issue, Lee said in a similar vein to Macron. This trend could be called an unspoken concern of the democratic camp, not to mention that several of the world’s third-wave democracies show signs of backtracking.
The questionable belief that “the East is rising and the West is falling” is not confined to leaders of the authoritarian axis; quite a lot of people in democratic countries believe the same thing.
In Taiwan, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has waxed lyrical about how strong China is.
“How long will it take for anyone else to catch up with the technology of [Chinese corporation] BYD?” Ma asked.
“We must be confident that they will never catch up,” China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Director Song Tao (宋濤) said in a happy response to Ma’s rhetorical question.
Others have convinced themselves that “the Shenzhen of today is the China of tomorrow.” What all these people have in common is that they are brimming over with the kind of self-confidence and conceit exhibited by senior Chinese foreign affairs official Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) at the 2021 US-China summit meeting in Alaska.
“China will pull through” any kind of confrontation with the US, Yang had said.
There are also some politicians in Taiwan who firmly believe that “Chinese-style democracy” is superior to “Taiwanese-style democracy,” “Chinese officials are better than those in Taiwan” and “you cannot eat democracy.”
Democratic countries and international media recognize Taiwan as being a model of democracy in the Indo-Pacific, while they regard Xi as a dictator. In their view, Xi’s “holistic approach to national security” does not provide security for China or other countries.
Nonetheless, some people in Taiwan say that we “have to trust Xi,” “Xi has no intention of threatening Taiwan” and “the worldwide anti-China atmosphere has been stirred up by the US.” Such a cognitive structure cannot be understood in terms of universal values or Taiwan-centric thinking, but only in terms of a heavy dose of Chinese nationalism.
True to form, Xi is on the one hand consolidating his power through digital totalitarian rule, while on the other hand leveraging Chinese nationalism. This is precisely where the idea of a “Chinese threat” comes from.
The motto of the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics was: “One world, one dream” and that of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics was: “Together for a shared future.” However, when Western diplomats shunned the Winter Olympics, Putin became Xi’s guest of honor. Just four days after the closing ceremony, Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine.
At a time when post-Cold War disarmament has given way to rearmament and the world is reverting from globalization to forming blocs, we should not imagine that the increasing world divisions are a short-term acute illness that would soon be over. We should not gaze at the quickly disappearing scenery in the rearview mirror.
It is better for Taiwan to reduce its economic dependence on China. As China seeks to normalize its “gray-zone” intrusions and harassment of Taiwan, former US president Richard Nixon’s China-friendly approach is no longer a model for other countries’ policies regarding the Taiwan Strait.
There are those who clearly know that most Taiwanese, for all these reasons, realize that we can no longer depend on China economically or trust it when it comes to our national security. Yet, those people resort to a misplaced kind of nationalism, clinging on to the fabricated “1992 consensus” that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to “one China” and would inevitably be unified. They believe in Xi’s slogan of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”
In their view of geopolitics, such people are like the Japanese legendary character Taro Urashima, also known as the “Japanese Rip van Winkle.” They are misfits in the real world who always dream of returning to the past. The scary thing about such people is that, given the chance, they could drag Taiwan into becoming a vassal of China, Russia and Iran.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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