Earth to Beijing: Get a life! The boys in Beijing just don't get it. During many discussions relating to Taiwan and China, I have heard Chinese insist that it is only natural for a mother to want to have a child return to her bosom. This homely image is usually shattered whenever it is suggested that the wayward child would prefer to remain outside the fold. Despite their professed love for their brothers in Taiwan, they show a remarkable willingness to bomb them into oblivion if they do not reciprocate.
This pairing of mother's love with "nuke-'em-til-they-glow" threats is twisted, to say the least. It recalls the logic (?) expressed by the US military during the Vietnam conflict that it might be necessary to destroy a village to save it. As it is, China has at least 500 missiles armed and aimed at Taiwan. If tensions are rising on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, it is not hard to see where the source lies. Chinese leaders continue to make substantial increases in military spending while confirming that reunification is their top priority and the core issue for their relations with the US. For its part, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is actively improving its capabilities for a full military invasion of Taiwan. The aim of its training is to perfect a multi-pronged blitzkrieg to secure a foothold to pre-empt US reaction.
To this end, the PLA conducts massive joint-force exercises that simulate an invasion of Taiwan from China's southeastern coast.
As in other independent countries, threats from a bellicose and bullying neighbor encourage the threatened people to rally around those they believe will protect their interests. It is hard for Beijing to make the case that bombing Taiwan into submission serves the best interest of Taiwan's inhabitants.
Threats of aggression have reinforced the development of a distinctive Taiwanese identity. A recent response to China's saber rattling was the largest demonstration in Taiwan's history when over a million people joined hands to create a human chain traversing the entire length of the country.
Public-opinion surveys indicate that Taiwanese identity has grown over the past decade with over 40 percent of inhabitants viewing themselves as Taiwanese only. Meanwhile, a slightly larger percentage sees their identity as both Taiwanese and Chinese. In all events, Beijing depends upon fabricated logic and imaginary historical claims to support its efforts to exclude Taiwan from various international organizations. Never mind the nationalistic assertions, historical facts offer little support for Beijing's claims for its suzerainty over Taiwan. Looking back into the distant past of the island of Formosa, it is well known that it was originally inhabited by Aboriginal peoples.
Eventually Portuguese sailors arrived in and around the country before significant Chinese settlements appeared there.
Then, in 1624, the Dutch arrived and were soon followed by the Spanish.
China's political influence on Taiwan began in 1661 after officials linked to the Ming dynasty displaced the Dutch. In 1683, the Qing took over Taiwan but ceded it to Japan in 1895. After spending nearly 50 years under Japanese control, Taiwan became the refuge of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chiang Kai-shek (
It is chimerical that a country founded upon a Marxist-Leninist ideology would be willing to depend upon sovereignty claims based upon imperial conquest and unequal treaties.
After all, demands for assumption of political control over Hong Kong and Macau were based upon repudiating just these conditions.
Forget about the rhetoric. It is clear that the leadership in Beijing cares nothing about multi-party, pluralistic democracy, nor is it sensitive to the aspirations of a free people. This is evident in dismissive remarks about the lack of "patriotism" among Hong Kong's democrats. They are dismissed as incompetent because they insist upon self-determination for Hong Kong residents instead of promoting the interests of a distant autocratic regime.
Recently, the Chinese Communist Party issued histrionic complaints that a referendum for a new constitution for Taiwan would violate international law. Concerning proposed changes in Taiwan's Constitution, it can only be an improvement.
The existing document was formulated in Nanjing in 1947 by Chiang's KMT to secure a one-party dictatorship.
Revisions are needed to support the vibrant, multiparty democracy that now operates in Taiwan.
Either as an act of arrogance and hypocrisy or willful deception, lectures on legal niceties from dictatorial single-party regimes hardly merit consideration.
If Beijing is so concerned about due process, it should welcome a referendum to determine whether people in Taiwan wish to reunite with China under the current regime.
As it is, there is no explicit universal acceptance of China's sovereignty over Taiwan. China's threat to use force against Taiwan has no more basis in international law than would military aggression against Japan or India.
Christopher Lingle is professor of economics at Georgetown University.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS