A new, multipolar world is already forming out of the post-Cold War unipolar US hegemony. Certain idealists envision a world of multiple, regional hegemons: benevolent — or at the very least reasonable and fair — dominant powers ensuring that the interests of the nations within their sphere of influence are observed. According to this naive point of view, this new ordering of the world would be humanity’s best hope for peace and stability.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Russian President Vladimir Putin, rejecting the dominant US or Western world order, are vocal advocates of multipolarity, and the primary drivers creating the conditions for its emergence. Unfortunately, they are no idealists, and are exclusively concerned with a realist consolidation of their own power. If peace and stability are to exist, they intend to dictate the conditions in which that would happen. Their realist approach would come at the expense of less powerful nations.
US foreign policy can be criticized; that is fertile ground. US maritime power ensuring free passage of the oceans and open trade has certainly brought wealth and stability in the post-World War II era, but it has also predominantly benefited the US, guided in this by US foreign policy intervention.
The CCP can reasonably claim to seek a multipolar world in response to what it views as the US’ curtailment of China’s development, even though it fails to acknowledge that its economic success over the past decades has been due in large part to the conditions that the US-led international order established.
For what Russian regional hegemony would be like, one need look no further than what is happening in Ukraine. Ask former Soviet Union republics, or for that matter any European nation, west, east or central, how safe they feel to find out how confident the citizens of countries are about the “ideal” of multipolarity.
During an interview in London for al-Jazeera broadcast on Friday last week, Vincent Gao (高志凱), vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, offered the world an eloquent expression of what CCP regional hegemony would look like. Parrying pointed questions from Mehdi Hasan about the CCP’s position on internal dissent and the Taiwan issue, Gao was the picture of reason in the face of Hasan’s aggressive questioning. Gao argued for less confrontation and more constructive and exclusively positive criticism of the Chinese leadership. However, any negative criticism might see an individual disappeared.
During this exchange, Gao said that, should the CCP succeed in unifying Taiwan with China, all Taiwanese would be required to pledge allegiance to the CCP, or risk losing their rights to citizenship. It is a case of you are either with us, or you do not exist. As for what Taiwanese think about the prospect of unification, Gao offered a simple response: The CCP does not care. In his own words it is “not up to the people in Taiwan to decide the ‘one China’ policy.”
On Monday, the Mainland Affairs Council reported that China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has added a new “die-hard Taiwanese independence separatists” section on its Web site, together with an electronic mailbox through which to report such people. One can only imagine how these “separatists” would be dealt with if the CCP were in charge in Taiwan.
The CCP’s blueprint for a multipolar world includes a prohibition of interference into another country’s “internal affairs.” In terms of Taiwan’s national security, the discussion can really stop here. What initially seems to be a reasonable position has quickly become a demand for exclusive domestic dominion, and an excuse for domestic violence with impunity and without the possibility of outside intervention.
A multipolar world can be sold through idealism or propaganda. In reality, it would leave Taiwan dangerously exposed.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
RSS