Taiwan’s pro-unification media outlets and academics all have a rigid formulaic response to any issue related to Taiwan’s difficult international situation: Destroy the relationship between Taiwan and the US and between Taiwan and Japan, and if Washington is friendly to Taipei, slander the US and accuse it of playing the “Taiwan card” as a way of dealing with China.
The subtext of this response is that Taiwan should avoid being used by Washington, that moving closer to the US will only increase China’s pressure on Taiwan and that cross-strait relations should be improved to counterbalance the relationship with the US.
The thought that has never struck these people is that if Taiwan is a card to be played, then China’s new “emperor,” Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), can also play the same card. Why would he let the US monopolize it?
If Xi played the “Taiwan card” without having the ambition to annex Taiwan and if he respected Taiwan’s democracy and independence while improving relations based on an equal status, then the US would not have a “Taiwan card” to play anymore. Surely this would be the best way to resolve the problem once and for all.
Following the same line of reasoning, if China did not aim to destroy the “status quo” and strive for hegemony, there would be no need for the US to work with nations that share its interests to stop Chinese expansion.
Taiwan is a small nation with a relatively small population, but China wants to annex it. Independence requires the assistance of strong countries, and that is why Taiwan, ever since the time of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), has played the “US card.”
If China really wants to achieve its territorial ambitions, why does it not play the US card with Taiwan, demand that the US accept the “one China” principle, block US arms sales to Taiwan — as well as the development of US-Taiwan relations — and perhaps even pressure Washington into making Taiwan accept “unification” with China?
Although the US is opposed to a unilateral change of the “status quo,” it is not opposed to Taiwan voluntarily abandoning its independence and accepting annexation by China, which means that the US card has restrictions after all.
The US does have a “Taiwan card” to play, but Xi cannot cancel out the US’ advantage by playing a Taiwan card based on equality and mutual respect, because he has misunderstood Taiwan’s position. He has positioned Taiwan as being a part of China, which turns his Taiwan card into a savage threat to the nation that only serves to push Taiwan ever further from China.
Xi has anointed himself emperor and is competing for hegemony with the US. When the China Unification Promotion Party and the Blue Sky Action Alliance fly the Chinese national flag and when pro-unification media outlets and academics accuse the US of playing the Taiwan card, they are only making fools of themselves.
There are no incentives or fundamental reasons for Taiwanese to surrender to China and oppose the US.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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