As the Ukraine crisis continues to intensify, the concept of “Finlandization” has been resurrected as a potential compromise for eastern Europe.
The concept refers to smaller countries refraining from policies that oppose an adversarial neighbor while nominally retaining independence, such as Finland did toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War. French President Emmanuel Macron last month reportedly suggested that the Finlandization of Ukraine would be “one of the models on the table” for defusing tensions with Russia.
Drawing a comparison between Taiwan and Ukraine, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) raised the idea on a political talk show, suggesting that Taiwan could learn from Finland’s stance during the Cold War.
Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) has also said that as a small country, Taiwan should keep its head down and avoid provoking China to avoid the same fate as Ukraine, evoking the concept without mentioning it explicitly.
However, the Finlandization of Taiwan should never be considered as a possible solution to cross-strait tensions, as it entails excessive uncertainty and the factual loss of sovereignty.
The nation should instead boost its military prowess and avoid relying too much on other countries fulfilling their promises and treaties toward it. It should not be forgotten that Moscow only consented to Helsinki’s Finlandization policies after the country in World War II proved to be tough nut to crack.
If Taiwan does not display the will and capability to fight, it could not stand a chance of keeping its bellicose neighbor at bay, let alone gain support from the international community.
The Finlandization of Taiwan might seem to be a win-win solution for solving tensions between Taiwan, the US and China. For the US, it would mean being relieved of the burden of keeping regional peace in East Asia; for China, it would mean being able to exert more influence on Taiwan’s foreign policy and military; and for Taiwan, it would be an opportunity to maintain the “status quo” without the constant threat of warfare.
Nevertheless, for the model to work, all parties involved need to reach a consensus and act on it.
Beijing, adhering to its “one China” principle, will never accept the existence of another government claiming to be “Chinese,” let alone respect its independence. China’s flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and its clampdown on Hong Kong’s democracy movement has demonstrated its unwillingness to abide by rules that no longer suit Beijing.
The US would lose its regional influence and Taiwan as an essential ally in the Asia-Pacific region, opening the gate for China’s aggression.
For Taiwan, Finlandization would be more than just simple foreign policy; it would undermine its sovereignty and affect national identity. With the public increasingly self-identifying as Taiwanese, conceding to China, whether in ideology or foreign policy, would be met with firm public opposition, especially if it erodes the two values that Taiwanese are most proud of: freedom and democracy.
If Taiwan were to go down the path of Finlandization, it would essentially agree to become a second Hong Kong, throwing away the national security and diplomatic foundations it has developed with the US.
To use the Latin adage, “Si vis pacem, para bellum” — “If you want peace, prepare for war.”
Taiwan must enhance its national strength. Any other solution would be a compromise of its integrity and values.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS