The loss of diplomatic relations with Nicaragua is undeniably a blow to Taiwan.
Taiwanese have expressed widespread outrage at the Chinese Communist Party’s repeated poaching of the nation’s diplomatic allies, and there has been unity across its major political parties in condemning the action.
However, there has also been a tempting yet misguided stance that some expressed over the loss: that Nicaragua, as an unfree, undemocratic and underdeveloped country, was an ally that Taiwan could afford to lose, or even that Taiwan does not need traditional diplomatic relations at all. This could not be further from the truth and ignores the difference between values-based diplomacy and national interest.
Regardless of the number of diplomatic relationships it enjoys, in terms of values, Taiwan stands as a beacon of freedom in Asia: Taiwan scored 94 out of 100 in a Freedom House ranking. Does this mean that Taiwan should only pursue relations with countries that have an equally high freedom ranking? Of course not.
Among Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, Eswatini, scoring 19 out of 100; Haiti, scoring 37; Honduras, scoring 44; Guatemala, scoring 52; and Paraguay, scoring 65, are not considered “free” by Freedom House standards, but they maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
This shows that holding similar political ideals is not necessary to maintain diplomatic relations.
This is not just a phenomenon exhibited by Taiwan: The US and Japan, which have similar government philosophies, maintain diplomatic relations with China, a country with whom they have sharp political disagreements. Likewise, non-democratic countries have strong relations with democratic countries that disparage their governments.
The reason is that a savvy nation will not make its decisions purely on the basis of values, lest it eventually lose the power to decide altogether. Nations must act in their own interests. Often, this means supporting political allies. Other times, it means trading with nations that do not share your values.
That is not to say that Taiwan should disregard the quality of a nation’s government while interacting with it.
The poor human rights record of the administration of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega is a disservice to his country and even a stain on Taiwan’s international reputation, but in the long term, it would have been positive to maintain these relations.
Taiwan should not simply write off Nicaragua, as maintaining friendly exchanges between citizens and the business community would help develop Taiwan’s soft power and also help it rekindle these relations.
Taiwan strives to build relationships that are resilient enough to continue to thrive in spite of political turbulence.
The difference between a “person” and a “citizen” partially resides in the fact that a person exists in the natural world and a citizen is created in the social world — states follow a similar pattern.
Taiwan exists as a de facto state, but without the social recognition of other nations, it lacks some of the autonomy other states have to participate in international organizations. To get that recognition, Taiwan must increase its visibility, which requires providing value. That means participating meaningfully in as many international organizations as possible and maintaining its non-diplomatic relations diligently.
Taiwan can look attractive to allies by contributing to their national interest — which can be done through trade, technological and security cooperation.
The Lowy Institute ranks Taiwan as the 14th-most powerful country out of 26 on its Asia Power Index, but points out that Taiwan’s score might be skewed due to its uncertain diplomatic status. Based on economics alone, it ranks Taiwan as eighth in Asia and says that the nation is becoming more competitive. Taiwan should leverage this position of relative power to contribute to the economic, social and political development of its neighbors.
Outreach could partially take the form of providing technologies that improve economic stability, such as modified crops, or helping to train the next generation of engineers or Mandarin-speaking diplomats.
Taiwan’s national interest requires it to find new markets and increase its visibility, but its values, particularly the sanctity of the individual and self-government, might also be best served by pursuing these interests.
Taiwan’s contributions can help liberalize countries by stimulating grassroots economic development, as the nation has an abundance of cultural, technological and social capital to draw from. It should use that capital generously with the aim to develop its international visibility, respect and recognition.
Taiwan has the duty and necessity to engage with all potential allies, be they liberal or illiberal, developed or underdeveloped. It is a massive mistake in the battle for international visibility, respect and recognition to play the role of a shunned child or lover who pretends that “they did not want to play together anyway.”
Taiwan must always take the high road, but never a high horse when engaging with the international community.
Chen Kuan-ting is chief executive officer of the Taiwan Nextgen Foundation and a former staff member at the National Security Council.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS