Unlike virtually every country in the world, Taiwan has weathered the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic admirably well. Taiwan’s governance system has stood firm in the face of crisis, gaining international acclaim for the competence and efficiency of its response to the outbreak. And the people of Taiwan have garnered goodwill through their generosity, reflected in their donations of medical equipment to the United States and elsewhere.
Sadly, others have not fared so well. Both the spread and death toll of the virus already have overwhelmed countries across the world. As the global thinker Fareed Zakaria has observed, we likely are “in the early stages of what is going to become a series of cascading crises.” A health crisis will lead to a global economic recession, which will cause national defaults, which will strain countries’ ability to cope with rising demands for social services, and so on. In other words, the pandemic will change the world as we know it.
In recent weeks, many analysts have stepped forward to offer their views on what the world will look like after COVID-19. For some, this moment would provide a referendum on the relative advantages of democratic versus authoritarian systems. Several warned that China might seize America’s moment of domestic turmoil to eclipse the United States on the world stage, while others suggested that the pandemic would be a permanent stain on China’s international reputation that never would be washed away.
If history is any guide, predictions made about the future from the fog of crisis tend to offer little predictive or explanatory value. I would be surprised if this experience ends up becoming much different.
We all should be humble about anticipating the consequences of this crisis. But that doesn’t mean we can afford to ignore considering some of the key questions that this crisis already has begun to expose. Like the cataclysms of great depression and world war in the 1930s and 1940s, this period similarly may end up becoming an era of intellectual ferment, where bold ideas about reform and renewal comingle with immediate requirements for responding to the pandemic.
My grandparents lived through the Great Depression in the United States, an experience that seared into them a habit for frugality. What will be the lasting effects on the generation that comes of age during the era of COVID-19? Will it lead to wariness of spending time around strangers? Will it alter consumption patterns, including in the entertainment, travel, and sports sectors?
At a macroeconomic level, will COVID-19 strengthen countries’ prioritization on national-level industrial mobilization? If so, we may soon begin to see greater emphasis on resilience and self-sufficiency over efficiencies gained through cross-border value chains. Such a shift could have significant consequences for Taiwan’s economy, given its role as a supplier of intermediate goods for complex global value chains.
At a global level, will multilateral institutions stand up to the challenges the world confronts? The early results have not been promising. The United Nations has struggled to mobilize collective action. No safety nets under the global economy have come into view. There is cause for concern that a defanged World Trade Organization will be capable of pushing back against protectionist forces. And there is diminishing hope that the World Health Organization will exercise capacity for creativity in ensuring that timely information is available to the 23 million people in Taiwan. If these institutions prove unworthy of this moment, where will resistance to forces calling for deglobalization emerge from?
At a societal level, will governments that have become significantly more intrusive in individuals’ lives during the crisis retreat back to their self-imposed pre-pandemic levels of surveillance and monitoring? Or will it become the new normal for governments to track individuals’ movements and personal health, all in the name of public safety?
This crisis also will raise fresh questions for Taiwan. It could lead to an intensification of cross-Strait tensions. Chinese authorities might nurture grievances about Taiwan’s early decision to halt shipments of medical supplies and its public references to COVID-19 as the “Wuhan virus.” Taiwan’s leaders also have no shortage of complaints about China’s handling of cross-Strait relations during the crisis, foremost among them Beijing’s prioritization on diplomatic point-scoring at the World Health Organization over considerations for individuals’ health and safety in Taiwan.
And in the United States, anger is building up around China’s negligent initial response to the outbreak of the virus. Some of this anger already has begun to be expressed through calls for the United States to show more visible support for Taiwan, including as a means of imposing costs on China.
In other words, this crisis has exposed a range of fresh challenges and questions about the future, the answers of which presently are unknowable. But our inability to answer them must not impede our thinking on the types of outcomes that would be preferable, and steps that could be taken now to realize them later. We are standing at a hinge point in history. The decisions made now and in the coming months will have lasting consequences well into the future.
Ryan Hass is Fellow and Michael H. Armacost Chair in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, where he holds a joint appointment to the John L. Thornton China Center and the Center for East Asia Policy Studies.
There has been much catastrophizing in Taiwan recently about America becoming more unreliable as a bulwark against Chinese pressure. Some of this has been sparked by debates in Washington about whether the United States should defend Taiwan in event of conflict. There also were understandable anxieties about whether President Trump would sacrifice Taiwan’s interests for a trade deal when he sat down with President Xi (習近平) in late October. On top of that, Taiwan’s opposition political leaders have sought to score political points by attacking the Lai (賴清德) administration for mishandling relations with the United States. Part of this budding anxiety
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
On Nov. 8, newly elected Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) and Vice Chairman Chi Lin-len (季麟連) attended a memorial for White Terror era victims, during which convicted Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spies such as Wu Shi (吳石) were also honored. Cheng’s participation in the ceremony, which she said was part of her efforts to promote cross-strait reconciliation, has trapped herself and her party into the KMT’s dark past, and risks putting the party back on its old disastrous road. Wu, a lieutenant general who was the Ministry of National Defense’s deputy chief of the general staff, was recruited
Tokyo-Beijing relations have been rapidly deteriorating over the past two weeks as China tries to punish Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks about Taiwan earlier this month, and the off-ramp to this conflict is yet to be seen. Takaichi saying that a “Taiwan contingency” could cause a “situation threatening Japan’s survival” — which would allow Japan to act in self-defense — has drawn Beijing’s ire and sparked retaliatory measures. Her remark did not gain public attention until Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) made an apparent threat to behead her. The two sides lodged protests against each
RSS