In "Wake up to the Chinese threat" (The Hill, June 28), US Representative Dana Rohrabacher wrote: "It is becoming clear that the future status of Taiwan is the key to US interests in Asia. Like a keystone holding an arch in place, without Taiwan our friends in Seoul, Tokyo and Manila would quickly get sucked into the Beijing vortex ... Further, the Chinese continue to upgrade their missile systems, which now include the extended-range DF-31A, which can target most of the world, including the continental US."
Aside from being a reassuring statement that ties the future status of Taiwan to US national security, this is the antithesis of recent talk of abandoning Taiwan as raised by a handful of US-based commentators who are either pro-Beijing or else have grown exasperated by Taiwan's reluctance to arm itself adequately.
However, as long as there exist discourses premised on Taiwan being a US burden, it shouldn't be overly provocative to pose the question: What could be in store for Taiwan in case it falls into Beijing's grip? A glimpse to a probable answer can be found in this year's Pentagon report to the US Congress, titled Military Power of the People's Republic of China, 2006.
Inside, there is an intriguing sentence added anew -- as versus last year's edition -- to a highlighted section with the subject title of "Factors of Deterrence."
Specifically, "an insurgency against the occupation could tie up substantial forces for years" is listed as one of the potential factors that might discourage Beijing from engaging in a reckless military adventure against Taiwan. It is clear that, should there be any multi-year insurgency against a Chinese occupation, immediately coming to one's mind would be a scenario not unlike the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Hence, what the Pentagon ostensibly intended as a means to pile up more weight to its impediment against Chinese aggression should function no less than a stern warning to the Taiwanese. Besides, there could be more to this Pentagon statement. In order for the insurgency to last years and to tie up substantial forces at the same time, it inevitably requires massive outside help. And the most likely sources are the US, as the report is implying without much subtlety, and possibly Japan.
The only purpose for the US and Japan to intervene in the insurgency would be to prevent China from ever being able to utilize a secured Taiwan as a springboard for power projection into the Pacific. But this vital strategic consideration, when reinforced with what's being affirmed by Rohra-bacher's aforementioned statement, also attests to the fallacy of the supposition that a peaceful resolution will evolve from non-violent unification between Taiwan and China and makes this last notion nothing but a delusion pervasive among Taiwan's pan-blue voters.
Regardless, it's the Taiwanese people's lives that are at stake here. It's simply too important a subject to be left to even the good intentions of Washington or Tokyo, much less Beijing and the pan-blues. Instead, the entire Taiwanese populace should face up to the fact that misery associated with insurgency lasting for years would not discriminate based on political hue.
Every Taiwanese, irrespective of political persuasion, should heed this clarion though succinct call sounded by the US Pentagon, and demand that the Taiwanese government, especially the legislators, halt any practice of duplicitously toying with Taiwan's future, be it the continuing blockage of the special arms bill or the dilution of sovereignty on account of political expediency.
Only by passionately pursuing the goal of a secure and
sovereign Taiwan can the Taiwanese preclude the possibility that one day their children would wander the streets of a Taipei that resembles Beirut in the 1980s.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
RSS