President William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday last week called for democratic nations to work together to meet the challenges posed by a revisionist China to international security. “China intends to change the rules-based international order,” he told the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei. “That is why democratic countries must come together and take concrete action.”
The annual security dialogue offers Taiwan an opportunity to bring top officials and policy experts to Taipei to discuss security issues, express solidarity and remind Beijing that Taiwan is not alone. It also allows Lai to speak directly to an international audience and assure the nation’s allies about Taiwan’s determination to uphold peace and security in the region, and demonstrate that under his administration, the nation is a reliable, like-minded partner.
Rhetorical signaling is a crucial component of any nation’s alliance maintenance, as narrating a foundation of shared norms, interests and vision of international organizations binds like-minded nations together in a common cause to uphold their vision of international order. Lai is carrying on the legacy of former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in narrating Taiwan’s centrality in the democratic alliance to resist the expansion of autocracy.
However, on the domestic front, Lai’s narrative of what Taiwan is fighting for is subtly different, particularly when speaking to the military. His recent speeches show a leader shaping a narrative about homeland and identity — what Taiwan is, what the military is fighting for and why.
Although Taiwan democratized three decades ago, the by-effects of democratization — an elevation of Taiwanese consciousness and identification with Taiwan as the homeland — have developed unevenly, no place more so than in the military.
Democracy has brought meaningful reforms to the military — its allegiance is no longer first and foremost to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), but to the nation, and it now answers to civilian command.
However, what the military thinks of itself in the context of democratization and concomitant Taiwanization is quite another matter. As an institution founded to “unify and rejuvenate China,” and which still reveres Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正), an ambiguity lingers for it about what the nation is and who the enemy is. Lai is seeking to change that.
Speaking to soldiers in Kinmen County on Friday last week at an event on the 66th anniversary of the 823 Artillery Bombardment, Lai said: “We are no longer trying to ‘retake the mainland’ [China], but we are also unwilling to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party. We want to continue a life of democracy, freedom, human rights and rule of law.”
Lai is also seeking to banish the defeatist mentality, common among conservative generals, that resistance to China is futile — a view not based on reality and in no small part influenced by an out-of-date emotional attachment to China.
“We cannot fail to distinguish between friends and foes, and should never accept a capitulationist attitude of ‘the first battle is the final battle,’” he told military cadets in June.
Strengthening Taiwan’s military identity and bringing it in closer alignment with the expectations of society is long overdue. A stronger identity would also bring greater clarity on military objectives and what service personnel are defending.
The process of democratization is still ongoing. For allies, it might seem that Taiwan is not reforming its defense as quickly as it could. However, military strategy is downstream of military identity, which would take time to reform.
Leaders are still navigating the legacy of 55 years of KMT one-party rule, but Lai’s recent speeches show a renewed focus on bringing the military in line with Taiwan’s political evolution.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS