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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS