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.
Taiwan-India relations appear to have been put on the back burner this year, including on Taiwan’s side. Geopolitical pressures have compelled both countries to recalibrate their priorities, even as their core security challenges remain unchanged. However, what is striking is the visible decline in the attention India once received from Taiwan. The absence of the annual Diwali celebrations for the Indian community and the lack of a commemoration marking the 30-year anniversary of the representative offices, the India Taipei Association and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, speak volumes and raise serious questions about whether Taiwan still has a coherent India
Recent media reports have again warned that traditional Chinese medicine pharmacies are disappearing and might vanish altogether within the next 15 years. Yet viewed through the broader lens of social and economic change, the rise and fall — or transformation — of industries is rarely the result of a single factor, nor is it inherently negative. Taiwan itself offers a clear parallel. Once renowned globally for manufacturing, it is now best known for its high-tech industries. Along the way, some businesses successfully transformed, while others disappeared. These shifts, painful as they might be for those directly affected, have not necessarily harmed society
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) spokesman Justin Wu (吳崢) on Monday rebuked seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers for stalling a special defense budget and visiting China. The legislators — including Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), Yeh Yuan-chih (葉元之) and Lin Szu-ming (林思銘) — attended an event in Xiamen, China, over the weekend hosted by the Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association, where they met officials from Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO). “Weng’s decision to stall the special defense budget defies majority public opinion,” Wu said, accusing KMT legislators of acting as proxies for Beijing. KMT Legislator Wu Tsung-hsien (吳宗憲), acting head of the party’s Culture and Communications
RSS