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
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