Debates in Taiwan over the clash between former US President Donald Trump and Harvard University have generated no shortage of commentary, analysis and emotion. As a US citizen observing from a distance, I fully understand the desire to engage with developments in the US. However, I would caution against allowing such distant controversies to dominate the public discourse in Taiwan, especially given the far more pressing challenges closer to home.
The issues in the US — polarization, institutional credibility and elite accountability — are real, but so is the US’ capacity to confront them. With a population of more than 330 million, a GDP exceeding US$27 trillion and an unmatched network of global alliances, the US is built to withstand internal crises. Its geographic size, diversity and layered democratic institutions give it the strategic depth to self-correct. Criticism from overseas, no matter how well-intentioned, is unlikely to shape its domestic evolution.
Taiwan’s situation is markedly different. It is a small, exposed democracy confronting an existential threat from one of the world’s most powerful authoritarian regimes. The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) pressure campaign extends beyond military threats to include economic coercion, political infiltration and cognitive warfare. Unlike the US, Taiwan lacks the luxury of distraction.
While criticism of institutions such as Harvard might reflect valid concerns, it risks diverting attention from urgent national imperatives. These include investing more significantly in national defense — potentially more than 5 percent of GDP — accelerating asymmetric warfare capabilities, countering CCP influence operations and bolstering democratic resilience from within.
From the outside looking in, Taiwan faces a critical strategic moment. The focus of its intellectual, political and civil society communities would be better directed at fortifying the nation’s sovereignty and preparing for contingencies that could define its future.
Just as the US’ challenges must be resolved by Americans, similarly, Taiwan’s problems can only be addressed by Taiwanese themselves.
The US would continue to debate and resolve its internal issues in its own time and way. However, Taiwan cannot afford to misplace its priorities. The stakes are too high, the threats too real and the timeline too uncertain.
Simon Tang is an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton, who lectures on international relations.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS