On May 1, The Economist published an article titled “A Superpower Crunch Over Taiwan Is Coming,” examining the growing risk of conflict over Taiwan amid deteriorating US-China relations. The piece says that Taiwan’s importance has increased economically, due to its critical role in global semiconductor manufacturing through Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co, and geopolitically, as China’s expanding military capabilities have begun to erode the US’ regional advantage.
Critics of the publication’s approach often say that it leans too heavily on alarmism, leaving readers with a sense of foreboding, rather than objective clarity. However, to either fully accept or outright dismiss the article would be a mistake, as it raises several important issues that warrant thoughtful consideration.
The first issue is the US’ continued reliance on tariffs as a central tool in its economic competition with China and the long-term viability of the approach. If tensions were to escalate, the US could find itself running low on non-military forms of leverage to shape China’s behavior.
Another is China’s increasing use of “gray zone” tactics, as Beijing continues to invest in covert strategies to weaken Taiwan from within. Disinformation, social media manipulation and astroturfing — the fabrication of seemingly grassroots support — are among the tools used. These tactics aim to erode public trust and weaken democratic institutions below the threshold of open conflict.
Taiwan’s internal political divisions further complicate matters. With the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) controlling the legislature and the Democratic Progressive Party leading the executive, partisan deadlock has hampered consensus on national security. In an era of intensifying pressure, domestic gridlock could be just as dangerous as foreign coercion.
Still, while such warnings serve as valuable reminders, it is important not to succumb to paranoia. Despite its assertive posture, China’s authoritarian system faces significant internal pressures, such as youth unemployment and an economic slowdown. A prolonged downturn could fuel domestic unrest and expose vulnerabilities. History shows that even the most formidable authoritarian systems can collapse under internal strain. For those skeptical of US support — especially among Taiwan’s anti-US voices — the fear that Washington might abandon the nation persists. However, this assumption significantly underestimates Taiwan’s strategic importance. Taiwan is a linchpin in the global semiconductor supply chain. Any disruption to its chip production would send shock waves through the global economy, triggering substantial financial losses worldwide.
Strategically, Taiwan is a linchpin in the “first island chain” — a defensive perimeter that helps the US and its allies contain China’s maritime expansion. If Taiwan were to fall, the integrity of the perimeter would weaken. The US would be pushed out of Asia, diminishing its influence and jeopardizing its role as a global leader. In this context, Taiwan is a pivotal asset in the US’ geopolitical calculus.
Encouragingly, Washington has begun to shift away from its long-standing policy of strategic ambiguity toward a more explicit show of support, as demonstrated by legislation such as the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act and the Taiwan International Solidarity Act. Since the severance of diplomatic ties in 1979, Taiwan has rarely seen such strong and public commitments from Washington.
Rather than living in fear or retreating into skepticism, Taiwan must recognize its strengths and reaffirm its democratic values. It must also confront efforts by China to undermine its sovereignty, doing so through legal and transparent means.
The road ahead is undoubtedly difficult, but it is far from hopeless. With unity at home and solidarity abroad, Taiwan can move forward with resolve and confidence — not resignation.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS