Russia’s unprovoked and senseless invasion of Ukraine has gripped the world over its potential ramifications on the global order. One autocratic ruler’s decision to disregard all reason and attack another sovereign state in what many are calling the “worst conflict in Europe since World War II” has suddenly made the inconceivable undeniable, and left everyone wondering if this would be the first domino to fall in a long and destructive run.
The obvious parallels between Ukraine and Taiwan have not gone unnoticed. Especially at a time when the perennial threat facing Taiwan has been consistently making headlines, commentators have been quick to raise the alarm that it “could be next.” Both have massive neighbors convinced that they are an inalienable part of their territory, led by autocrats with an iron grip on power and disdain for “the West.”
Yet this is where the similarities end. Understanding the differences is key to soberly assessing risk.
First and most evident, Ukraine shares a long land border with its bellicose neighbor, while Taiwan has the advantage of being a mountainous smattering of islands that have been building up defenses for decades. Ukraine was caught off-guard when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and has been playing catch-up ever since. Most experts are confident that invading Taiwan would be immensely lengthy and costly for China, with no guarantee of success — especially with US involvement.
Sanctions against China would also likely have a far more acute sting, given its massive economy’s integration with the rest of the world. Beijing will certainly be watching closely to see how far countries are willing to go in sanctioning Russia, and adjust its risk calculation accordingly.
Perhaps most importantly, Taiwan is of critical economic interest to the countries poised to take action in its defense. The world relies on Taiwan for semiconductors, meaning that a Chinese invasion would at best disrupt supply and at worst rewrite the technological and geopolitical world order.
As unfathomable as it might seem to ignore these immense risks, Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown the world that when a tyrant is in charge, the war room is always open. Yet Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is not the same as Putin, and neither are their countries.
China’s leaders have time and again shown themselves to be calculating, and over the past week have once again proven their prudence. Beijing has carefully avoided any declarations of allegiance, acutely aware that affirming Russia also affirms its recognition of breakaway territories and invasion of another sovereign state, flying in the face of its foreign policy of noninterference.
Xi is also more likely to continue along this trajectory, because he sees where it leads. China views itself as a rising power, poised to eventually take over the mantle from the Western powers if it waits patiently and plays its cards with care. Meanwhile, Putin commands a state in decline. Both men want to leave their mark on the world — the difference is that Putin’s time is running out, while Xi believes he only needs to wait.
Although the doomsday talk in foreign media needs some cooling, the pundits are not entirely wrong. For all their differences, it is a very real possibility that China could decide on a military solution. No one can predict the calculations happening in the halls of power, and as the Ukraine crisis has shown, anything is possible.
Taiwan should take this warning to heart. Seeing images of Ukrainian citizens taking up arms serves as a striking reminder of what could happen, and everyone should be better prepared.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a good reason to avoid a split vote against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in next month’s presidential election. It has been here before and last time things did not go well. Taiwan had its second direct presidential election in 2000 and the nation’s first ever transition of political power, with the KMT in opposition for the first time. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was ushered in with less than 40 percent of the vote, only marginally ahead of James Soong (宋楚瑜), the candidate of the then-newly formed People First Party (PFP), who got almost 37
The three teams running in January’s presidential election were finally settled on Friday last week, but as the official race started, the vice-presidential candidates of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have attracted more of the spotlight than the presidential candidates in the first week. After the two parties’ anticipated “blue-white alliance” dramatically broke up on the eve of the registration deadline, the KMT’s candidate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), the next day announced Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) as his running mate, while TPP Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je
On Tuesday, Taiwan’s TAIEX stock index peaked at 17,360 points and closed at 17,341 points, surpassing Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index, which fell to 17,303 points and closed at 17,541 points. A few years ago, the gap between the Taiwanese and Hong Kong stock indices was more than 20,000 points, but this was before the 2019 anti-extradition protests. Hong Kong is one of the world’s most important financial centers, but many Chinese Internet users joke that it is only a ruin today. When asked by a legislative councilor whether he would communicate with social media platforms in the mainland to request
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) has called on his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) counterpart, William Lai (賴清德), to abandon his party’s Taiwanese independence platform. Hou’s remarks follow an article published in the Nov. 30 issue of Foreign Affairs by three US-China relations academics: Bonnie Glaser, Jessica Chen Weiss and Thomas Christensen. They suggested that the US emphasize opposition to any unilateral changes in the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait, and that if Lai wins the election, he should consider freezing the Taiwanese independence clause. The concept of de jure independence was first
RSS