What do the Panama Canal, Greenland and Taiwan have in common? At first glance, not much. The Panama Canal is a vital artery for global trade, Greenland is a sparsely populated yet strategically significant territory, and Taiwan is a democratic stronghold in the Indo-Pacific. Yet these three are bound by an unsettling parallel: The hubris of powerful leaders who see them as pawns in a geopolitical chess game, disregarding the sovereignty and dignity of their people.
Recently, US president-elect Donald Trump sparked international outrage with his refusal to rule out using military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland. His remarks were not merely the latest in a series of headline-grabbing soundbites, but a dangerous echo of rhetoric we often attribute to authoritarian regimes — most notably the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) ongoing threats to take Taiwan by force. For those who care deeply about Taiwan’s future, Trump’s comments are a cautionary tale of how democratic nations must resist normalizing such behavior.
Trump justified these ambitions under the guise of national security and economic necessity.
“The Panama Canal was built for our military,” he declared, suggesting it should still belong to the US. Similarly, he mused about Greenland’s strategic importance and abundant natural resources, framing it as a “deal that must happen.” That Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Bourup Egede and Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino had to reaffirm their nations’ sovereignty is itself a troubling sign of the times.
Trump’s rhetoric is not just absurd, it is reckless. Imagine the uproar if Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) proclaimed a right to seize the Suez Canal because of its strategic importance. We would rightly call it a brazen act of imperialism. Yet when Trump flirts with similar rhetoric, some dismiss it as mere bluster. This double standard undermines the very principles that democracies, including Taiwan, rely on to maintain their sovereignty in a world increasingly shaped by power politics.
The parallel with Taiwan is chilling. For decades, the CCP has claimed Taiwan as a “breakaway province” and has not ruled out using military force to “unify” it with China. Much like Trump’s justification for targeting Greenland and the Panama Canal, Beijing frames its ambitions in terms of “national security” and “geopolitical necessity.” Both cases rest on a warped view of sovereignty that prioritizes might over right.
Taiwan’s future hinges on the international community’s commitment to upholding democratic values and international law. If a major democracy like the US normalizes rhetoric that trivializes sovereignty, it emboldens authoritarian regimes to do the same. When Trump suggests that the sovereignty of smaller nations is negotiable, it sends a dangerous signal to Beijing — a green light for their ambitions in Taiwan.
Sovereignty is not just a theoretical concept; it is the foundation of international stability. The post-World War II order was built on the idea that disputes should be resolved through dialogue and mutual respect, not coercion or force. When leaders like Trump or Xi flirt with annexationist rhetoric, they chip away at that foundation, creating a world where power is the ultimate currency.
For Taiwan, this erosion of norms is existential. Taiwan’s survival depends not only on its military capabilities, but also on the strength of its alliances and the principles those alliances uphold. If democratic nations fail to take a firm stand against imperialist rhetoric, they risk creating a precedent that weakens their own ability to defend Taiwan when it needs them most.
What could be done to counteract this trend? First, democracies must hold themselves to the highest standards. This means rejecting rhetoric or policies that undermine sovereignty — whether they come from Beijing or Washington. It is not enough to criticize China’s ambitions in Taiwan while turning a blind eye to similar rhetoric from Western leaders. Consistency is key to maintaining credibility.
Second, democracies must reaffirm their commitment to collective security. Taiwan’s status as a thriving democracy in the face of authoritarian threats makes it a litmus test for the international community. Nations that value freedom and sovereignty must support Taiwan diplomatically, economically and militarily. This includes ensuring that Taiwan has the resources it needs to deter aggression and amplifying its voice on the global stage.
Finally, public discourse matters. The normalization of imperialist rhetoric — whether in the guise of “Making Greenland Great Again” or “unifying” with Taiwan — must be challenged at every turn. Leaders and citizens alike must make clear that sovereignty is non-negotiable, no matter how strategic or resource-rich a territory might be.
The stakes for Taiwan are clear. The parallels between Trump’s comments and China’s ambitions are not mere coincidences; they are symptoms of a broader erosion of respect for international norms. For those who care about Taiwan’s future, this is a call to action. Trump’s rhetoric might seem laughable, but its implications are deadly serious. Taiwan cannot afford a world where such behavior goes unchallenged.
Y. Tony Yang is an endowed professor and associate dean at George Washington University in Washington.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS