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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS