The recent demand by US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick that Taiwan invest massively in the US and shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad must be called what it is: coercion masquerading as partnership. Far from strengthening Taiwan’s security, such a move would dismantle Taiwan’s most vital defense asset: the “silicon shield.”
Taiwan’s unrivaled dominance in advanced semiconductors is not just an economic fact; it is our strategic lifeline.
This so-called silicon shield ensures that the world depends on Taiwan, making it indispensable to allies and a dangerous gamble for adversaries. It is our deterrent, our leverage and our survival mechanism in a hostile geopolitical environment.
Yet Washington’s proposal would directly erode this shield. Stripping Taiwan of its production dominance would dilute our indispensability and make us more vulnerable, not less. A Taiwan that no longer controls the core of global semiconductor supply chains is a Taiwan that risks becoming expendable in the calculus of great powers.
What is most disturbing is the lack of logic at the heart of Lutnick’s demand. On the one hand, Washington insists it seeks to defend Taiwan. On the other, it pressures Taiwan to weaken the very mechanism that deters aggression. This contradiction is dangerous. It suggests that the US views Taiwan less as a strategic partner and more as a subcontractor to be drained for US interests.
Realism in international politics teaches us that survival depends on power, leverage and self-help — not on abstract promises. For Taiwan, semiconductors are our power and our leverage. To give that up in exchange for vague reassurances would be an act of self-destruction.
If Washington truly cares about Taiwan’s survival, it must recognize that weakening our silicon shield is tantamount to undermining the very rationale for defending us.
Taiwan is asked to pour billions of US dollars into US projects with no proportional security guarantee in return. If such demands persist, they would corrode trust and cast doubt on the credibility of the US’ commitments.
Destroying Taiwan’s silicon shield will not make the world safer. It will make Taiwan more vulnerable, embolden aggressors and destabilize the global balance of power. If Washington wishes to be seen as a reliable partner, it must abandon these coercive tactics and pursue genuine collaboration — through joint research, talent exchange and concrete security guarantees.
Simon H. Tang is an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton, who lectures on international relations.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
RSS