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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS