Defense from within
Ryan Hass’ analysis (“External uncertainty should concentrate minds on domestic compromises,” April 14, page 8) offers a sober and clear-eyed view of the political uncertainties facing Taiwan in this new era of US foreign policy improvisation. His call for domestic compromise within Taiwan could not be more timely. Yet, this is precisely where the real challenge lies.
The greatest threat to Taiwan today might not be China’s growing military power alone — it is Taiwan’s inability to unite in the face of it. Hass urges all parties in Taiwan to compromise on how urgent and serious the threat from China is. However, that assumes a shared reality exists. The uncomfortable truth is that to certain opposition politicians in Taiwan, China is not a threat — it is a business partner, a benefactor or quite possibly their next boss, assuming they are not already on the payroll.
As long as such figures remain influential, unrestrained and politically active, Taiwan’s ability to present a unified front in defiance of China would remain crippled. That is the core of the problem — and the most formidable task ahead for President William Lai (賴清德). Enforcing the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) more stringently is not about political witch-hunting; it is about national survival. Likewise, the ongoing recall campaign must be seen not merely as a political exercise, but as the public’s effort to defend democracy against those who would compromise it from within.
As Hass rightly points out, Trump’s transactional worldview means that Taiwan can no longer rely on abstract appeals to shared values. The era of strategic ambiguity from the US is morphing into one of strategic volatility. Taiwan must adapt — not just externally, but internally. Only a united Taiwan could credibly manage the “dual dependency” relationship with the US, and only a united Taiwan could resist Beijing’s strategy of exploiting division.
In short, before Taiwan can defend its sovereignty from external threats, it must first defend it from within.
John Cheng
Taichung
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS