Australia’s top think tank, the Lowy Institute, released its annual Asia Power Index on Monday, and Taiwan was one of just three nations to have gained “comprehensive power” this year amid the economic and political ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The index project, launched in 2018 as a research tool for policymakers and academics, evaluates 25 nations — 26 this year — on key metrics, such as military capability, diplomatic and cultural influence, and resources. This year, three more metrics were added, including ecological threats and handling of the pandemic.
While Taiwan has been ranked 14th since 2018, its overall score this year improved 5 percent thanks to a 9 point improvement in diplomatic influence, a 1.1 point rise in cultural influence, and small increases in future resources and economic relationships, even while it lost 0.9 points each in resilience and economic capability, and 0.2 points in military capability.
However, its overall power standing has changed considerably from 2018, when it was labeled a “misfit middle power,” along with North Korea and Russia, and from last year, when it was the only middle power to show a significant downward shift in overall power, which was attributed to its geopolitical significance and “its position as a political outsider.”
What a difference a year — and a global crisis — can make.
Taiwan topped the index’s chart for international reputation and effective handling of the pandemic, just edging out New Zealand.
The institute said that competent handling of the pandemic was a key factor, but not the only one that helped Taiwan, Vietnam and Australia to improve their regional standing, as others with successful responses to the pandemic, such as New Zealand and South Korea, saw declines in their power.
Yet it included a barbed reminder that “misfit middle powers” such as Taiwan “deliver inconsistent performances across the influence measures” and that “Taiwan exerts less influence in the region than expected, given its available resources.”
So what can the government and the public take away from Taiwan’s pluses and minuses this year?
First, the nation’s economic capability, at eighth place, remains key to its global standing, but the 0.9 point decline should be cause for concern and an impetus to redouble efforts to build or strengthen trading ties with ASEAN members, India, Australia and other nations.
Second, while Taiwan placed 19th in diplomatic influence, it did see a 9 point improvement this year, probably because it ranked 10th in foreign policy bureaucracy thanks to its efficacy, with the institute’s report citing the benefits of the nation’s “substantial network of unofficial representative offices abroad.”
Third, amid the US-China struggle for primacy in the region, the future will be determined by asymmetric multipolarity, meaning that the interests of middle powers, including Taiwan, will become more important, and that nations on the margins can still take part in shaping the regional order.
Fourth — but perhaps most importantly — this year’s results, as the institute’s report says, are a “powerful reminder that legitimacy and leadership on the world stage start with the capacity of leaders to govern well at home.”
Taiwan, despite its exclusion from the WHO, has become a key influencer in the battle to contain the coronavirus, thanks to the leadership shown in the Presidential Office, the Cabinet, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and elsewhere.
However, essential to that leadership is the legitimacy that this nation’s democracy confers, domestically and internationally, which is something that the Chinese Communist Party, with its petulant bullying attempts to silence Beijing’s critics and cower Taiwan, will never understand.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS