There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.”
This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan.
The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry.
However, Taiwan has been a semiconductor powerhouse for two decades at most, and the US has been keen on preventing the Chinese Communist Party from taking Taiwan since 1945. That was the whole point of bringing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to Taiwan in the first place.
The bottom line is that US military support would be forthcoming as long as Taiwan remains strategically located, whether it is home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) or simply a humble former Japanese colony. Even with the GDP of Guam, Taiwan would still hold immense strategic importance to the US.
Nor is democracy the reason they would rush to Taiwan’s aid. Taiwan used to be a dictatorship, and the US was still on its side. Now that the nation has achieved democracy, Taiwanese must keep waving their own flag in front of the world, not the flag of TSMC.
This is primarily a battle of narratives on a global scale, and in terms of signaling, repeating the silicon shield idea is counterproductive. This myth paints everyone in an unflattering light: Taiwan’s partners as cynical enough to care more about chips than 23 million people, and Taiwanese as essentially holding the world hostage, coercing everyone to come fight for them or lose their electronic comforts. That is disastrous for Taiwan’s global image, and it is not even true.
Realpolitik is real. The US simply shares a common interest in keeping Beijing’s hands off Taiwan. This is not an anti-US position, but a simple acknowledgment that every country puts its interests first, regardless of who leads it.
However, that does not mean Taiwan should portray itself as a technology blackmailer. It is possible to argue that these overlapping strategic interests now align with the freedom of Taiwanese, regardless of what is produced. Taiwan’s geostrategic partners are all democracies, and it is vital to engage with their populations — or rather, their voters. The goal should be to avoid people thinking Taiwan is playing the tech card to force them onto its side, but rather for them to care about Taiwan.
Even if Taiwan does have some economic leverage over certain governments (and most countries have an asset of that kind), that should be handled by technocrats, not turned into public messaging.
Even from a pragmatic standpoint, what would happen if Taiwan’s technology became obsolete? Would Taiwan always be the leader in chips? Even if factories do not move, who is to say another, more vital technology would not emerge and render Taiwan irrelevant? Do people really want something as volatile as technological leadership to be their lifeline?
Finally, faith in a silicon shield blinds us to the darker side of Taiwan’s chip industry: rising inequality. For young people struggling to pay rent or find decent jobs, the growing rift between the haves (those in high-tech industries) and the have-nots (most of the population) is a major source of resentment and a growing vulnerability to dangerous populism. The biggest threat lies within, and the enemy feeds on these social divides.
Becoming a silicon oligopoly is not a blessing, either; it is a danger to Taiwan’s democracy and freedom. Not only does it send the wrong signal to the world, it threatens to turn the country into the kind of unequal society that no longer feels worth defending.
Julien Oeuillet is a journalist in Taiwan. He is the founding editor of Indo-Pacific Open News. He also writes and produces radio and television programs for several English-language publications globally.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS