We often hear the KMT or other presidential candidates warning that if a candidate who supports or even emphasizes Taiwan independence is elected, then China might take Taiwan by force. Lives and property would be destroyed and Taiwanese society left in total chaos.
We hear whispers that China opposes the election of "A-bian" (阿扁, the nickname of DPP candidate Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), and that both the US and Japan are concerned that the defeat of the KMT candidate might lead to tensions in the Taiwan Strait and instability in the Asia-Pacific region. These rumors are part of the KMT's"stability card" (安定牌) ploy.
We cannot help but ask: Does this mean that if the KMT candidate or James Soong (宋楚瑜) is elected, China will not invade Taiwan and that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait would co-exist peacefully and Taiwan would be secure?
In the 50 years following the establishment of the Chinese communist regime, it has remained unwilling to publicly renounce the the use of force to solve the Taiwan problem. This is one of China's fundamental national policies. Once China abandons this stance, it would be unable to suppress the demands of Tibet and East Turkestan for independence, as well as the request of other regions for greater autonomy.
By maintaining this policy, China also indicates to the US and other democratic countries that it is willing to wage a war in the Taiwan Strait at any time. In doing this, China is essentially engaged in political extortion from a position of strength. Its position will not be changed by the rise or fall of any particular political party in Taiwan. Some say that China favors the KMT and strongly opposes a DPP administration. This allegation is nothing but a groundless campaign gimmick and fails to reflect reality.
Let us use the 1996 missile crisis as an example. At the time, a 150,000-strong armed force was deployed along China's southeast coast and missile tests where conducted in the sea off Kaohsiung and Keelung to intimidate the people of Taiwan. China's reason: that a popular presidential election was a sign of Taiwan independence.
In addition, this was done to test the US' determination to abide by the Taiwan Relation Act and use force to protect Taiwan. Surprisingly, the US reaction was both swift and determined. On March 3, 1996 (the day after China launched missiles), US Secretary of Defense Parry and National Security Advisor Anthony Lake went to see Liu Huaqui (劉華秋), foreign affairs director of China's State Council, in Washington and explicitly warned Liu that the move by China would have "grave consequences" and that the US would not hesitate to go to war with China to protect Taiwan.
To back up these words, the US immediately sent the aircraft carriers USS Nimitz and USS Independence and their supporting battle groups into international waters near Taiwan -- they did not sail into the Taiwan Strait to avoid provoking China too much.
China is no match for the US militarily and was deeply afraid of an actual military conflict. The US could totally destroy China's military and missile bases in the coastal area. Pressured by the US' superior military strength, China had no choice but to embarrassingly call off its actions. China not forgotten this humiliation.
During the past 10 years, the Soviet Union has disintegrated and the communist regimes in Eastern Europe collapsed one after another. In China too, people are demanding independence, greater freedom and better lives. The Chinese regime is facing an unprecedented challenge. Under the circumstances, no Chinese leader dares to recklessly wage a military offensive against Taiwan. An offensive entails great risks, because not only could it be unsuccessful, but China would suffer heavy military and economic losses as a result. It could even lead to the collapse of the Chinese communist regime itself.
Would a Chinese offensive against Taiwan have such serious results? If China succeeded in taking Taiwan by force, the blow to the defense strategy of the US and Japan in the western Pacific, the international reputation of China and the security of international sea routes would all be damaged. China would also become the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region and become a serious threat to that region's peace and security.
Both from self interest, their own protection and as a warning against any country against using force to violate another country's political independence and territorial integrity, the US and Japan, would certainly form a united front to keep China from invading Taiwan.
Last year, NATO and the US bombed Yugoslavia continuously for a month, and despite their absolute supremacy in weapons, failed to force Yugoslavia into submission. At the end, the two sides negotiated a cease fire. The example goes to show that missiles and aid raids alone are insufficient to make a country succumb.
Ever since the establishment of an Israeli state in 1948, the country has managed to protect its independence and territorial integrity despite the military threat posed by its powerful Arab neighbors. In fact, Israel even managed to defeat the Arabs in numerous armed conflicts. Some people in Taiwan believe that if China attacks Taiwan with missiles, Taiwan would immediately collapse. People who hold this view are simply frightening themselves into defeat.
Besides engaging in friendly interaction with the US, Japan and other peace-loving countries on regular basis so that they can identify with Taiwan, we must maintain the determination to protect our country with our lives. We may not wish to provoke China with extreme verbal attacks and recklessly declare independence, but we must protect Taiwan's international status, integrity, freedom and security with determination. Under such circumstances, I believe that China's attempt to take over Taiwan through force could never be successful.
Lin Fu-shun is a former legal counsellor to the Mission of the Republic of China to the United Nations.
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