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
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS