When former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe in 2021 said that a contingency in Taiwan would also be an emergency for Japan, it was taken as a warning that Tokyo would have to get involved if conflict erupted in the Taiwan Strait — if not to defend its national security, then certainly to address a transformed security environment if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) were to annex Taiwan.
What seemed to be an insightful comment then is now — less than three years later — generally regarded to be the case. This is just one measure of how much the regional dynamic has changed. The CCP and its fellow travelers put the blame squarely on the US and its foreign policy, while others say it is the CCP’s behavior that has changed the landscape.
This is not a chicken-and-egg scenario. It is not difficult to see which party is responsible for increasing regional tensions.
These tensions were behind Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s decision to extend changes in Tokyo’s national security posture that started with Abe’s constitutional reinterpretation to allow the exercise of the right of collective self-defense.
Following Abe’s assassination in 2022, Kishida introduced further changes to enhance Japan’s defense, including significantly increasing defense spending, lifting the ban on exports of lethal defense equipment to third countries and, more recently, introducing changes that would augment the interoperability of US and Japanese forces.
Japan is not doing this to attack other countries: It is to protect itself from the CCP’s ambition.
As if to confirm Tokyo’s concerns, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force on Monday sent a Y-9 reconnaissance plane into Japanese airspace near the Danjo Islands in the East China Sea. Japanese Minister of Defense Minoru Kihara called it a “grave violation of Japan’s sovereignty.”
Clearly, the PLA is expanding its aggressive, destabilizing posture in the region, and talk about tensions in the Taiwan Strait has become less meaningful as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea merge into one extensive and continuous region in which the CCP is asserting itself.
Some believe this is simply a historical inevitability, as a resurgent regional hegemon reclaims dominance after a “century of humiliation.” Former Singaporean permanent representative to the UN Kishore Mahbubani believes that the West and countries in the region should just allow China to resume its former hegemonic position, and that Taiwan must bow to the whims of destiny.
Former Singaporean minister for foreign affairs George Yeo (楊榮文) is of the same opinion, saying that China and Taiwan forming “one China” is the only sure way to peace. He should make clear that he understands the CCP will not allow Taiwan to have any real say in what form that “one China” would take.
In May, former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad argued that China should just be allowed to make its claims unchallenged in the interests of regional peace.
Is this how Taipei should play it? Should Tokyo just throw up its hands and allow the CCP to have its way? Should Manila stop pushing its maritime rights in the West Philippine Sea like a latter-day, Asian King Canute commanding the tide to retreat?
The answer is no. Kishida will be standing down as Japanese prime minister and as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party next month. Taipei should work to maintain close ties with his successor and further security cooperation.
On Wednesday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Taiwan might collaborate with Manila against China’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea. This would be a welcome development.
The right way is to stand up, not lie down and be walked over.
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