As the local media continue to ponder over the events in Kabul, many have rightly pointed out the folly of comparing Afghanistan with Taiwan. Culturally, politically, economically and geographically, the two countries are poles apart. Nevertheless, the hasty withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, and the country’s return to rule under the oppressive Taliban regime, has ignited a debate within Taiwan over whether the US can be relied upon to come to its defense.
On Tuesday last week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) wrote on Facebook: “I want to tell everyone that Taiwan’s only option is to make ourselves stronger, more united and more resolute in our determination to protect ourselves.”
“It is not an option for us to do nothing ... and just rely on other people’s protection,” the president wrote.
It was an uncharacteristically forthright intervention by Tsai, designed to ram home an important home truth to the Taiwanese public: The events in Afghanistan demonstrate that Washington will eventually lose patience with any US protectorate or ally that cannot stand on its own two feet or is not prepared to fight for its own survival.
Moreover, Taiwan cannot assume that this or any future US administration would muster sufficient political support at home to place US troops in harm’s way to defend a far-flung nation about which the average American knows very little.
As Tsai said, Taiwan must improve its defense autonomy. Taiwanese politicians and military planners can no longer assume that the nation only needs to hold out against China for a couple of days and US carrier strike groups would sail over the horizon to the rescue. Not only might this be militarily impossible, given China’s investment in anti-access area denial capabilities — it might also be politically impossible.
If Taiwan were perceived to be skimping on its defense, causing the military balance across the Taiwan Strait to tip categorically in favor of China, a future US administration might determine that Taiwan is a lost cause, and scale down its costly naval and air force presence in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, which provides an important deterrence against Chinese aggression.
Were Beijing to call Washington’s bluff and launch an invasion of Taiwan, to a US president staring down the barrel of a gun, a tactical retreat to shore up the defenses of the more populous and larger economies of Japan and South Korea might seem like an appealing option. Taiwan could become this generation’s Czechoslovakia: a sacrificial morsel of red meat tossed to China in a futile attempt to satiate its voracious appetite.
Taiwan’s geostrategic value appears unassailable. Like a cork stopping a bottle, Taiwan’s position in the first island chain effectively contains China’s navy. However, everything in the world has a price. If Beijing makes the price of defending Taiwan too high for Washington to stomach — and if the US has successfully developed its own advanced semiconductor production — then all bets are off.
It cannot be a coincidence that a source within the Ministry of National Defense last week disclosed a plan to inject an additional NT$200 billion (US$7.16 billion) into indigenous missile defense capabilities to accelerate the mass production of precision and long-range missiles, including hypersonics. This is an astute move that would furnish the military with a potent asymmetric deterrent ahead of schedule, and signal to Washington that Taiwan is serious about defending itself.
Taiwan is a mature democracy that has come of age and must now stand on its own two feet. Afghanistan is an object lesson of a US protectorate that failed to get its house in order. Taiwan must not make the same mistake.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking