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.
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