When Chinese Premier Li Qiang (李強) omitted the term “peaceful unification” in his report to the Chinese National People’s Congress on Tuesday last week, some wondered whether this signified a change of strategy toward Taiwan.
Beijing has not abandoned peaceful unification, but said that it is pursuing “peaceful unification by coercion,” National Security Bureau Director-General Tsai Ming-yen (蔡明彥) said on Monday at a meeting of the legislature’s Foreign and National Defense Committee. Beijing aims to achieve this using measures such as information warfare, military coercion, “united front” operations, intimidatory rhetoric and the strangulation of Taiwan’s international space.
Foreign Policy Research Institute Asia Program senior fellow June Teufel Dreyer described this as an “anaconda strategy” — forcing “unification without firing a shot” by constricting Taiwan until it can no longer resist. One of Beijing’s methods — part of its sustained information warfare operations — is to convince Taiwanese and the international community that unification is inevitable and resistance is futile. Authoritative statements frequently frame “reunification” as unstoppable and a “trend of the times.”
As the Chinese State Council white paper The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era said in August 2022: “The wheel of history rolls on towards national reunification, and it will not be stopped by any individual or any force.”
This evocation of an inevitable Chinese future for Taiwan is no accident, University of Nottingham China Policy Institute director Jonathan Sullivan says, adding that it is part of a “communication strategy that seeks to erode Taiwanese people’s perceptions of their agency to determine their future.”
It is important that China is not successful in this endeavor, as “the capacity to imagine the future, and perceiving agency to affect future outcomes, is crucial for national resilience,” he says.
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) speeches on China’s discursive efforts to limit Taiwan’s future is the subject of Sullivan’s “Time Matters in Cross-Strait Relations: Tsai Ing-wen and Taiwan’s Future,” published last month in The China Quarterly. He says Tsai’s speeches are “mindful of threats to Taiwanese people’s confidence in the future, with numerous themes designed to galvanize and promote resilience.”
For example, in her Double Ten National Day address in 2020, she talked of the imperative to “seize the future” lest “[Taiwan’s] fate be decided by others.” At her inauguration address in 2016, she said that the nation’s future rests on collective responsibility, which requires every citizen to “carry the future of this nation.”
“Taiwan’s future belongs to everybody,” she said, adding that remaining “united under the banner of freedom and democracy” is imperative for Taiwan’s future.
She frames the nation’s commitment to democracy as a powerful resource for generating international support, Sullivan says.
China says that Taiwan is an “internal affair” and of no interest to the international community. Tsai resists this future and depicts Taiwan as being “democracy’s first line of defense” against a vanguard of authoritarianism, a narrative that has won support locally and across democracies.
Tsai’s resilient, outward-facing, liberal democratic Taiwan with agency, is the antithesis of Beijing’s hopeless Taiwan and “inevitable unification.”
Taiwan shows that smaller, democratic powers have agency and, through careful diplomacy, unity, resilience and a positive narrative about the nation’s future, can stand up to a larger power’s coercion. In the face of China’s information warfare, Taiwanese could have confidence in their agency to resist and shape their future, as they have done for decades, and should continue to do so.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95