Regarding the rise of doubts in Taiwan about US military aid if China invades, I have the following response. The doubts are reasonable, assuming that a Chinese takeover is not an existential threat to Taiwanese.
It is not, though, a response I would expect to hear from a Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese or Ukrainian.
Some Taiwanese academics and politicians do not believe a Chinese takeover is a threat to Taiwanese, not because they do not believe a Chinese takeover is a possibility or a probability, but rather because they do not believe, in their hearts, that there really is such a thing as a Taiwanese people.
I have no argument against that. A person in Taiwan can go from being Taiwanese to not being Taiwanese in a heartbeat. All they have to do is change their mind. The same cannot be said for real nationalities. A Ukrainian is going to be a Ukrainian whether they think they are or not.
A Vietnamese is going to fight a Chinese takeover even if completely abandoned by the Americans. There is no such transactional nonsense like “if you do this, this and this for us, maybe we’ll think of defending ourselves.”
If this kind of attitude becomes the norm in Taiwan, the US government should not risk its people, its wealth or its reputation to defend Taiwan. Consequently, I believe it is just a matter of letting Taiwan turn itself over to China, and finding a way to do that where the whole world can see that Taiwanese chose to do so.
If not, Taiwan’s people must resolve their national identity issue and demonstrate their will to resist a foreign (Chinese) invasion. They should go to next year’s presidential election polls and elect the Democratic Progressive Party’s candidate, Vice President William Lai (賴清德).
Simon H. Tang is an adjunct professor of California State University, Fullerton.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS