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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS