After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists.
The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India to safeguard national security and fight terrorist forces that cross borders to attack innocent civilians.”
Following the statement, Indian social media users expressed appreciation for Taiwan, calling for further deepening and strengthening of the relationship between Taipei and New Delhi.
Prominent author and scientist Anand Ranganathan on X expressed his thoughts on Taiwan’s statement. “China does not recognise Kashmir as part of India. China has usurped 38000 sq km of Kashmir. China supports Pakistan on Kashmir,” Ranganathan wrote.
“Despite this, India does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. India does not even recognise Taiwan as a country. Time has come to correct this,” he added.
Ranganathan’s statement had more than 530,000 views, 40,000 likes and more than 9,700 reposts. Some users urged the Indian government to recognize Taiwan.
As the ministry’s statement triggered an important discussion on Indian social media, it is important to analyze why Taiwan made that statement and what it implies for Taiwan-India relations.
First, Taiwan communicated to New Delhi that it is sensitive to India’s national security concerns. By doing so, it set a stage for reciprocation. In case of an event concerning Taiwan’s national security, it would want India to be sensitive to its concerns, too.
Second, Taiwan accepted that terrorism is a national security risk, and it is a country’s “legitimate” right to take “necessary actions” to “fight terrorist forces that cross borders to attack innocent civilians.”
That is particularly important, because Taiwan clearly stated that terrorist forces came from across the border. By saying so, Taipei stood valiantly against Pakistan’s and China’s narrative, and acknowledged that terrorism is backed from across the border.
Third, the persistent threat to Taiwan’s national security comes from across the Taiwan Strait from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Taiwan and India share the CCP threat — India faces threats from across its disputed borders with China. By saying that “MOFA will continue to pay close attention to developments between India and Pakistan and engage in joint efforts to ensure peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific,” Taiwan stated that India-Pakistan tensions is a problem of the Indo-Pacific region. By saying so it sought reciprocation on the issue of threat to its national security as an Indo-pacific paradigm.
Finally, by highlighting India as a “democratic partner,” Taipei communicated that its association with New Delhi is long term and is based on shared commitment to democracy which ideologically is opposed to Chinese communism. Through the statement, Taiwan asserted its political identity and sought sensitivity to its geopolitical concerns.
Venus Upadhayaya is a Ministry of Foreign Affairs Taiwan fellow from India.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Workers’ rights groups on July 17 called on the Ministry of Labor to protect migrant fishers, days after CNN reported what it described as a “pattern of abuse” in Taiwan’s distant-water fishing industry. The report detailed the harrowing account of Indonesian migrant fisher Silwanus Tangkotta, who crushed his fingers in a metal door last year while aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel. The captain reportedly refused to return to port for medical treatment, as they “hadn’t caught enough fish to justify the trip.” Tangkotta lost two fingers, and was fired and denied compensation upon returning to land. Another former migrant fisher, Adrian Dogdodo
RSS