Taiwan is one of very few countries about which it can be said that it faces a threat to its survival. Given this, decisionmakers should ensure that resources and energy are properly channeled to meet any challenge head-on. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
Israel’s situation is analogous to Taiwan’s: Both are threatened by an external enemy bent on denying them the right to exist and which have shown determination to use force to achieve that end. Granted, the analogy only goes this far, as the dynamics of power in the two conflicts differ markedly. In Taiwan’s case, it is the weaker party in the struggle, while Israel in its struggle has the upper hand militarily and is an occupying force, which generates a whole new set of grievances.
That being said, the threat facing Israel is no less serious and its gravity has served as a rallying force for its people. There are undeniably serious differences of opinion inside Israel about how to deal with the challenges created by the Palestinians’ right to self-determination or attacks against Israelis by groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Israel’s democratic way of life has helped bring those differences into contrast. However, all Israelis, from those who support the use of force to resolve the conflict to those who regard the occupation as the main cause of the conflict, agree on the need to do what is necessary to ensure the survival of their nation.
This is an example that Taiwanese appear unwilling to follow. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that violence against Taiwan, apart from the 1995-1996 Missile Crisis, remains abstract, despite its formidable military foe across the Taiwan Strait. Consequently, the green-blue political schism continues to fracture the nation, a situation that bears great dangers when facing an external enemy. Aside from fostering disunity, the endless domestic battles over electricity price increases and imports of US beef, for example, take the government’s and political parties’ focus and resources away from productive issues.
Fueling this is the view, held by a number of people in the pan-green camp, that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) are trying to “sell” Taiwan to China, a contention that holds little water once one has made the effort to actually talk with KMT members, their supporters and civil servants.
Despite all his flaws, Ma is not a dictator and could not be one even if he wanted to. He is part of a government, and Taiwan’s democratic system, flaws notwithstanding, imposes checks and balances on what he and his administration can do. The KMT has flouted democratic rules on a number of issues in the past four years, but it is hard to imagine it could get away with using “authoritarian” means to alter the fundamentals of Taiwan. Not even those who gave Ma a second mandate in January would allow him to do so.
Rather than launch attacks on what is regarded as the “proximate” enemy, the pan-green camp would be far more effective if it sought to establish constructive relationships with officials in the pan-blue camp who have the same democratic values and pride in Taiwan as they do, in an effort to focus on the one external force that can truly dissolve the nation: China.
There are potentially large, untapped resources in the pan-blue camp where the pan-green camp could make inroads if it tried. Such efforts would have far better chances of protecting the nation by presenting China with a united front, instead of spending nights in the legislature playing with furniture to prevent a vote on amendments on what are, in the end, mundane — and some would say inevitable — issues.
For Israelis, the threat is clear enough that they have little patience for clownish behavior in their parliament. Taiwanese are playing with fire if they think that their situation is any different.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS