Denied an invitation by China, Taiwan ultimately refused to attend the APEC leaders' summit in Shanghai. The incident not only explains the current deadlock across the Taiwan Strait, but also reflects the blind spots in Beijing's Taiwan policy.
There are three major blind spots in that policy. One, China believes it can view the government and the people of Taiwan as two separate entities. Taiwan's government must be spanked for walking the independence path, while the people and the opposition parties must be wooed. Two, Taiwan won't be able to resist unification as long as China's economic and military strength continues to grow. Three, with China's rising international status, powerful nations will be unwilling to back Taiwan ans so it will then finally accept unification.
First of all, by dealing a blow to Taiwan's government over the APEC summit, China believes it can highlight the impression that the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) government's refusal to recognize "one China" and its pro-independence stance are the causes of cross-strait tensions. Such blows, however, can backfire. Taiwan's absence from the summit has the potential to trigger opposition criticism within Taiwan against the government's lack of dexterity in handling the issue, and criticism that being absent from the summit is not the best option.
Both public opinion and Taiwan's opposition parties, however, have been unanimous in their condemnation of China's brutish behavior. It has certainly hurt Taiwanese feelings and may increase public opposition to unification with China. It may even increase public support for independence. Opinion polls and two presidential elections have consistently shown something very important about public opinion during crises in cross-strait relations: whenever China makes military threats against Taiwan there is a backlash against it from Taiwan's public. By excluding Taiwan from the summit, China has only increased public support for Chen's government. This flies in the face of China's goal of unification and of its desire to attack Chen's government.
Next, changes in the economic and military balance across the Strait may limit Taiwan's international space, but that will not necessarily resolve the cross-strait issue. No matter how hard China tries to develop its military, it cannot possibly catch up with the US or even Japan in the foreseeable future. It is almost impossible for China to apply a military solution to the cross-strait issue because that will destroy the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the fundamental interests of the US and Japan therein.
Also, economic development is inevitably increasing the mutual dependence between China and the rest of the world (including Taiwan). China will cause itself great harm by trying to solve problems through military force. This potential harm will only increase along with the deepening mutual dependence between China and the rest of the world.
A war in the Strait will also cause extensive damage to the global economy. The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon has triggered a serious global recession, with losses estimated at US$350 billion (one-third of China's GDP) for the world economy. Bourses across Asia, including China's, fell by 10 to 15 percent within one month. If the two sides of the Strait actually go to war, global disaster will be the inevitable result.
A 1978 speech by the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) gives an in-depth explanation of the massive risk involved if China were to try to solve the cross-strait issue by military force. Deng said: "If China undertakes unification through non-peaceful means, there can only be two possible outcomes. One, China will have to pay a considerable price even if it succeeds in conquering Taiwan. The southeastern coast [of China] will be in ruins. Also, what [China] conquers will be a Taiwan in ruins. [It will also have to] face 17 million hostile Taiwanese. Two, China will have to pay an even higher price if it fails to conquer Taiwan. The KMT will still rule Taiwan and 17 million Taiwanese will be pushed into the KMT's fold. The civil war may evolve into an international war and invite interference from imperialists. This will not be conducive to China's interests."
Finally, Taiwan does not need to harbor any illusions about US policy or entertain groundless fears. US policy has long supported "one China," peaceful resolution and dialogue across the Strait. Since last year, the US has even taken the stance that any peaceful resolution to the cross-strait issue must have the consent of the people of Taiwan. Even if the US rebuilds strategic relations with China, it will not look on meekly from the sidelines when China attacks Taiwan. It is definitely in the interests of the US -- not just Taiwan -- to maintain stability, peace, prosperity and development across the Strait.
Also, Taiwan is a democratic country. Any US government that sells out Taiwan will have to pay a considerable moral price. During the Cold War, the US needed China to counter the Soviet Union. Taiwan was then an authoritarian state and yet the US was unwilling to sell it out. The US is even less likely to do so now. Even if the US is no longer willing to give Taiwan's visitng leaders high-level treatment or sell it cutting-edge weapons to Taiwan, that will still not affect the basic US policy on the cross-strait issue.
Tung Chen-yuan is a doctoral candidate at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
Translated by Francis Huang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS