China on Thursday last week launched military exercises titled “Joint Sword-2024A” around Taiwan, which it said were to “punish” Taiwan in response to President William Lai’s (賴清德) inaugural address. While these drills showcased Beijing’s advanced military capabilities, they were also born of its weakness and demonstrated once again its total inability, or unwillingness, to understand and respect the preferences of Taiwanese.
For all its “great rejuvenation,” Beijing cannot influence Taiwanese politics the way it would like. It is no closer to achieving “unification” on its own terms than when former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) issued his “message to Taiwanese patriots” in 1979.
Taiwanese have consistently shown that they believe that only they have the right to determine their future, and that this is a conversation Beijing has no right to be a part of. Unable to influence by persuasion, China resorts to violence instead.
Joseph Nye defined “soft power” as the “ability to obtain preferred outcomes by attraction rather than coercion or payment.” To its fury, Beijing has no soft power to bring Taiwan into its fold. Its military exercises are a reflection of its weakness rather than its strength.
On Taiwan, Beijing showcases what the historian and military strategist Edward Luttwak has termed “great state autism” — the collective lack of situational awareness on behalf of national leaders to understand the reality of the world beyond their borders.
Taiwanese want to determine their future in peace and free from external interference. They are especially protective of their hard-won democracy.
As Lai said in his speech: “I hope that China will face the reality of the Republic of China’s existence, respect the choices of the people of Taiwan.”
Beijing’s latest exercises demonstrate once again its unwillingness to come to terms with Taiwan as it is.
Beijing’s great state autism manifests itself in military exercises. It seems unable to grasp that the more coercion it applies, the more it installs in Taiwanese the determination to resist.
Coercive diplomacy — the use of threats or limited force to get your opponent to moderate or change their behavior — can be a useful tool in international relations. Beijing had little success with this policy tool during the 1995 to 1996 Third Taiwan Strait Crisis when it also deployed unprecedented large-scale military exercises attempting to influence the decisionmaking of then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Coercion to prevent independence is now superfluous.
The content of Lai’s speech which so infuriated Beijing — that the Republic of China (ROC) and People’s Republic of China (PRC) are not subordinate to each other, and the Republic of China Taiwan is already a sovereign, independent country — is an agreed upon consensus in democratic Taiwan.
Beijing has reached a dead end with “coercive diplomacy.” Now all that is left is naked punishment — lashing out because you cannot get your way. This is the behavior of a schoolyard bully.
During the presidency of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Beijing had thought it could co-opt pro-China forces to bring Taiwan into its fold. However, as Lev Nachman and Jonathan Sullivan wrote in their book Taiwan: A Contested Democracy Under Threat, despite Ma’s friendly overtures across the Taiwan Strait, his presidency illustrated that “no ROC president will be able to deliver what the PRC wants, i.e. a political resolution resulting in unification on the PRC’s terms.”
Rather than come to terms with the reality of Taiwan’s democracy, China lashes out with violence to punish Taiwan. For there ever to be regional peace and stability, Beijing must come to terms with the reality of Taiwan’s democracy.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS