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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS