Opposition parties in the legislature often criticize the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), calling it a “US pawn.”
Great powers are flexing their muscles, with democracies and resurgent communist states heading toward a collision. Minor countries and powers including Taiwan would have to choose a path for survival. The question is, should Taiwan put its lot in with one camp or the other, or should it attempt to strike out on its own?
If great powers did not have dreams of domination or territorial ambitions over their neighbors, smaller countries could live without fear. Taiwan would not need to accept US domination, or China’s.
If becoming the pawn of a great power is the inescapable destiny of small countries, then Taiwanese should ask themselves: Should we become a US or Chinese pawn?
Becoming a pawn of a great power is a matter of choosing the system of governance or way of life one wants to live under. Should Taiwanese choose democracy, freedom and human rights, or communism, authoritarianism and dictatorship?
Some political parties and figures in Taiwan have long chided and blamed Taiwan for China’s “gray zone” tactics when it sends its military aircraft and vessels around Taiwan, cautioning against “provoking China,” and pushing the narrative that “we are the descendants of the Yan and Yellow emperors,” that “the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are one family,” that “the first battle would be the last” and that “the US would not deploy troops on Taiwan’s behalf.”
Such discourse is part of a messaging attempt to pass off those parties’ interpretation to the international community that Taiwan needs to choose to be a Chinese pawn. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party feel certain that a democratic US would not intervene on Taiwan’s behalf. They would rather give the US the cold shoulder while accepting tacit orders from Beijing, placing it on a pedestal while ignoring all the actions that would undeniably make the nation China’s pawn.
They would do this while claiming a moral high ground, pretending to keep both great powers at a distance. Yet their track records reveal that doing so is self-deception, and that they are just saying aloud what they wish they could, but lack the gumption to do.
An irony in all this would be to ask which great power these opposition party elites primarily choose for their and their children’s international education. Is it the US or China? When they consider emigrating, do they opt to move to the US and pledge their loyalty to the Stars and Stripes or China’s five yellow stars and crimson field?
These parties, with a self-applied or perhaps passively placed “love China, doubt the US” label, field presidential candidates who are compelled to pay homage to the US prior to elections, with some candidates taking multiple trips to rub shoulders with US officials. None of their candidates seemed willing to do the same with China, perhaps because it would lead to defeat. When they talk about the US, their mouths say “no,” but their heads nod “yes.”
If Taiwan did not need to be a great power pawn, would Taiwanese who cherish democracy, freedom and human rights elect to come under the wing of the leader of democracies? Not much thought has to go in to realize the drawbacks Taiwanese would suffer under an iron-fisted China.
If Taiwan is forced to be a great-power pawn and chose a communist, authoritarian and dictatorial China, would it not be getting what it deserves and sowing its own demise?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Tim Smith
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS