US President Donald Trump is bringing significant changes to US foreign policy, with governments around the world, allies and foes alike, scrambling to adjust. This is no less the case for firm friends of the US such as Taiwan.
Trump is shifting the US’ relationship with its allies to one in which self-interest and mutual backscratching play a larger role, rather than relations built solely on shared values. This is not such a bad thing. While shared values are an important component of any international relationship, they have never been and never will be decisive.
Taiwan must learn to adapt and shape its foreign policy accordingly to safeguard its interests in a more competitive world. It has already made great strides in this adjustment. President William Lai (賴清德) has announced that he would introduce a special budget to lift defense spending to more than 3 percent of GDP (original spending had been earmarked at about 2.45 percent). This would not only meet US expectations to boost defense spending, but would also help reduce Taiwan’s trade deficit with the US. Some reports have said the nation expects to purchase at least US$7 billion of US arms.
Not only would the Trump administration see this as a win, but it would also improve Taiwan’s national security and regional stability by bolstering deterrence.
However, in other areas, the government has been slow to react. In meeting Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on chips, rather than discussing how Taiwan’s high-tech manufacturing could help to revive US manufacturing, Lai has touted “semiconductor supply chain partnerships for global democracies.”
As Ryan Hass, director of the Brookings Institution’s John L. Thornton China Center, wrote on X on Friday last week, such rhetoric “does more to expose divergence between Washington and Taipei than it does to signal solidarity.”
Elsewhere, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) has talked of “integrated diplomacy” built on democratic values. While this rhetoric worked before Trump’s second term, it might be less effective now.
As Hass wrote in the Taipei Times (“Ryan Hass On Taiwan: What does Trump want from Taiwan?” Feb. 17, page 8), the US president does not care for ideology or political systems, but prioritizes reindustrializing the US, reducing immigration and deterring wars.
“If Taiwan’s leaders are looking for ways to build inroads with Trump and his advisers, they could find fertile ground by highlighting Taiwan’s current and future contributions to America’s industrial expansion, its commitment to its own defense and its responsible management of cross-strait tensions,” Hass wrote.
Given Taiwan’s importance in high-tech manufacturing, which is crucial to reviving US jobs and industry, and its location in the first island chain — a friendly Taiwan helps the US project power, is crucial for the US to defend the likes of Japan and the Philippines, and counterbalances China’s ambitions — the nation has a firm foundation to build even stronger ties with Washington on the basis of mutual self-interests.
Taiwan is a proud liberal democracy facing threats from a far larger neighbor that seeks to undermine its values, freedoms and democracy, which Taiwanese have fought hard for. Taiwanese identify with their democracy, and that is reflected in the nation’s diplomacy. It also has democratic partners in Asia and Europe with the same values binding those ties.
So while it would not be easy for Taiwan’s leaders to shun talking about values altogether, in a new geopolitically self-interested era, national leaders must adapt and find a new balance between values and interests in the nation’s rhetoric and policies.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS