Former US president Donald Trump made international headlines in July with his abrupt comments that Taiwan should pay the US for its defense and accusing Taipei of stealing the US’ chip industry. These statements sparked significant outrage. Public opinion was largely critical, viewing Trump’s remarks as an unjust and simplistic approach to a complex geopolitical relationship.
Despite the public outcry, the government opted for a balanced response, emphasizing its ongoing efforts to bolster national defense and expressing gratitude for the US’ continued support.
It was not the first time that Trump had made controversial comments about international relations and it clearly would not be the last. These statements are consistent with his long-standing anti-globalist stance on international affairs, which prioritizes US interests over international commitments and significant global issues, such as arms control and climate change.
During his campaign for the presidency and while in office, Trump repeatedly said the US should not involve itself in global issues as extensively as it had in the past. This perspective was evident in several key foreign policy decisions he made, including the US’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In addition, Trump insistently called on NATO allies to “pay their bills” and allocate at least 2 percent of their GDP to defense, as stipulated in the NATO Pact. His unforeseen statements and actions often left international allies uncertain about the reliability of US commitments, leading to the coining of the term “Trump-proof.”
Trump’s unwillingness to engage in global issues, despite running the country that created and led the international system, was a major point of concern. His stance is often attributed to his business background, evidenced by his frequent use of business jargon in international affairs.
This approach further fuels concerns about the stability and predictability of US foreign policy under his leadership.
The potential return of Trump to the US presidency has sparked concern across the world, particularly among its allies. International actors are thus taking proactive steps to “Trump-proof” their agreements and engagements with the US, aiming to ensure continuity and reliability in the face of potential political shifts.
One of the most significant examples was spearheaded by NATO. Given Trump’s previous criticisms and unpredictable stance toward NATO missions and members, particularly regarding allied support for Ukraine, the alliance has been working on mechanisms to ensure stable and predictable support for Ukraine.
This includes discussions about a US$100 billion fund to provide long-term military aid, ensuring that aid continues regardless of who the US president is. Although many experts are not convinced about the feasibility of such plans, these efforts show that NATO allies intend to diversify their strategic means, in the absence of US involvement.
Taiwan was in Trump’s crosshairs with his latest comments about its defense and chip industry. These statements have added to the geopolitical uncertainty in the Taiwan Strait. On a government level, Taiwan refrained from confronting Trump’s statements directly, instead emphasizing its commitment to national defense and expressing readiness to take further actions while thanking Washington for its support. This diplomatic approach underscores Taiwan’s recognition of the critical importance of US support in the face of the persistently increasing threat from China.
Taiwan’s strategic significance in the Asia-Pacific region cannot be overlooked. The nation plays a crucial role in US foreign policy, and its security is vital for maintaining regional stability. Despite Taiwan’s robust defense capabilities, the power imbalance between China and Taiwan is considerable, necessitating continued US support.
Therefore, Taiwan faces challenging decisions in light of a potential Trump return to the presidency. On one hand, Trump would likely maintain his anti-China policies, which Taiwan might benefit from. On the other hand, his anti-China stance might not automatically mean unwavering support for Taiwan.
At this juncture, it is essential to consider what Taiwan’s “Trump-proof” policy options are, if there even are any.
Taiwan’s viable options are limited. The government might have to acquiesce to Trump’s demands, which could involve increased arms deals or even the relocation of its chip industry. Alternatively, it could explore opportunities to restore communication channels with China to preserve peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
Despite criticisms regarding the feasibility of Trump-proofing policies, Taiwan still needs to consider diversifying its strategic means to maintain peace, security and the “status quo” in a region marked by uncertainties.
Proactively developing a multifaceted strategy would be essential for Taiwan to maintain the complex geopolitical landscape and ensure its long-term security and stability.
Harun Talha Ayanoglu, PhD, is a Taiwan Center for Security Studies research associate.
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