A new, multipolar world is already forming out of the post-Cold War unipolar US hegemony. Certain idealists envision a world of multiple, regional hegemons: benevolent — or at the very least reasonable and fair — dominant powers ensuring that the interests of the nations within their sphere of influence are observed. According to this naive point of view, this new ordering of the world would be humanity’s best hope for peace and stability.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Russian President Vladimir Putin, rejecting the dominant US or Western world order, are vocal advocates of multipolarity, and the primary drivers creating the conditions for its emergence. Unfortunately, they are no idealists, and are exclusively concerned with a realist consolidation of their own power. If peace and stability are to exist, they intend to dictate the conditions in which that would happen. Their realist approach would come at the expense of less powerful nations.
US foreign policy can be criticized; that is fertile ground. US maritime power ensuring free passage of the oceans and open trade has certainly brought wealth and stability in the post-World War II era, but it has also predominantly benefited the US, guided in this by US foreign policy intervention.
The CCP can reasonably claim to seek a multipolar world in response to what it views as the US’ curtailment of China’s development, even though it fails to acknowledge that its economic success over the past decades has been due in large part to the conditions that the US-led international order established.
For what Russian regional hegemony would be like, one need look no further than what is happening in Ukraine. Ask former Soviet Union republics, or for that matter any European nation, west, east or central, how safe they feel to find out how confident the citizens of countries are about the “ideal” of multipolarity.
During an interview in London for al-Jazeera broadcast on Friday last week, Vincent Gao (高志凱), vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, offered the world an eloquent expression of what CCP regional hegemony would look like. Parrying pointed questions from Mehdi Hasan about the CCP’s position on internal dissent and the Taiwan issue, Gao was the picture of reason in the face of Hasan’s aggressive questioning. Gao argued for less confrontation and more constructive and exclusively positive criticism of the Chinese leadership. However, any negative criticism might see an individual disappeared.
During this exchange, Gao said that, should the CCP succeed in unifying Taiwan with China, all Taiwanese would be required to pledge allegiance to the CCP, or risk losing their rights to citizenship. It is a case of you are either with us, or you do not exist. As for what Taiwanese think about the prospect of unification, Gao offered a simple response: The CCP does not care. In his own words it is “not up to the people in Taiwan to decide the ‘one China’ policy.”
On Monday, the Mainland Affairs Council reported that China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has added a new “die-hard Taiwanese independence separatists” section on its Web site, together with an electronic mailbox through which to report such people. One can only imagine how these “separatists” would be dealt with if the CCP were in charge in Taiwan.
The CCP’s blueprint for a multipolar world includes a prohibition of interference into another country’s “internal affairs.” In terms of Taiwan’s national security, the discussion can really stop here. What initially seems to be a reasonable position has quickly become a demand for exclusive domestic dominion, and an excuse for domestic violence with impunity and without the possibility of outside intervention.
A multipolar world can be sold through idealism or propaganda. In reality, it would leave Taiwan dangerously exposed.
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