US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement.
Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan.
He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think about collective self defense without relying on the US.
Friedrich Merz, poised to be the next German chancellor, has said that his “absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that we can achieve real independence from the USA, step by step,” and that Europe should potentially find a replacement for NATO.
Trump has only been in office for a little more than a month. They say a week is a long time in politics: Geopolitics is rarely upended in such a short amount of time.
For Taiwan, and especially since the world finally woke to the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a discernible story arc largely in Taiwan’s favor, with like-minded nations, under US encouragement, voicing support for peace in the Taiwan Strait.
That arc has evaporated. Some voices, such as Fukuyama’s, are concerned about a collapse of the world order. Some, including a contributor on today’s page, James J. Y. Hsu (許正餘), see reason for optimism.
The point is that we have no idea what the future holds. Can Taiwan still depend on US backing in the face of aggression from the CCP?
US skepticism could previously be put down to a campaign strategy by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and other pro-China forces; it has now become a more difficult position to refute.
For now at least, US presidents are limited to two terms in office; Trump only has four more years left. However, the current situation is a wake-up call for many nations around the world. There is a recognition that postwar Europe has been overreliant on the US for its security. That realization is not only overdue, it is possibly also too late.
Regional nations such as Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia, all of whom had previously relied on the promise of US support, find themselves in a similar position. In the absence of assured support, this overdependence on one nation needs to be addressed.
This does not mean assuming a lack of US assistance, and one must also recognize that, for valid reasons, Taiwan is “not Ukraine,” and Trump does appear to be redirecting his attention from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region. However, it does add more urgency for Taiwan to bolster its ability to defend itself, possibly with more assured assistance from regional powers such as South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Australia.
This will be difficult to achieve: Unlike Europe, East Asia has no established security architecture like NATO on which to build.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs says that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently reiterated US support for Taiwan in line with the Taiwan Relations Act and the “six assurances.”
However, we appear to be in uncharted territory: How the new reality plays out could go in Taiwan’s favor; it could equally lead to disaster.
There is a renewed urgency on planning for the nation’s long-term security in a new security environment, and nothing should be taken for granted.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS