Recently, BBC World Service announced an annual opinion poll by GlobeScan, an international opinion research consultancy that was conducted across 28 countries, asking more than 29,000 adults whether they considered the influence of different countries in the world to be mostly positive or mostly negative.
About 34 percent of respondents said they had a positive view of China’s influence in the world.
The figure has declined steadily from about 50 percent since the annual poll was launched in 2005, showing that the world does not really recognize Beijing’s claims that its growing strength is a “peaceful rise.”
The poll results support the “balance of threat” theory in international relations.
The theory was proposed by Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor who studies alliances between countries.
He believes that the question of whether or not countries should create an alliance when dealing with a rising power depends on the degree of threat that they feel.
The threat consists of four elements: Aggregate power, geographic proximity, offensive power and aggressive intentions. Among the four, aggressive intentions play a significant role.
Following his study of cases across the world over the past century, he believes that if a rising nation has a lot of “hard power” such as population and industrial and military capabilities, and if it often demonstrates its strength or even intention to invade neighboring countries, then it would force the neighboring states to form an alliance in order to safeguard themselves and counterbalance the threat.
Today, China is following precisely this path in East Asia. China’s hard power is on the rise and it shares borders with many East Asian countries.
Its invasion capabilities are being demonstrated by its deployment of missiles targeting Taiwan, but are also manifested by the warships China sends to the disputed islands in the East and South China seas, causing tensions with neighboring countries.
As for the last element, aggressive intentions, the poll results show that negative views of China are rising around the world.
Perhaps these actions do not yet mean that China intends to invade its neighbors. However, as the exchange rates for the Chinese yuan remain stagnant, Chinese products are entering international markets on a massive scale, eating into the market shares of not only the US and European countries, but also China’s neighboring developing countries.
From a perspective of trade and economy, Beijing’s aggressive business policies may well cause a lot of concern among these countries.
This lends to evidence that China’s rise is not a friendly one and it may compel other countries to form alliances to resist China.
Given this situation, Taiwan needs to consider whether its unheeded pro-China policies are wise.
If, for example, the Southeast Asian countries in the future form an alliance to restrain China, which side should Taiwan be on?
At a time when the international political situation in the East Asian region is unclear, Taiwan should make sure that it makes friends with those countries that are more concerned about Beijing’s rise.
If Taiwan continues to expand its pro-China policies without restraint, it may well be lumped together with China and come to be seen as a regional enemy.
Chen Tsung-yen is a research coordinator at the Taiwan Brain Trust.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS