For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first.
Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable.
Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent threat.
Preventive war seeks to eliminate a potential danger before it materializes.
That distinction is the line separating order from opportunism.
Several respected international law scholars have argued that the threshold of imminence was not met in Iran’s case. There was no publicly available evidence that Iran was on the verge of launching an attack, nor that it possessed operational nuclear weapons ready for use.
If the rationale rests on stopping a future capability rather than countering an imminent assault, the justification shifts from defensive necessity to strategic choice.
Strategic choice is precisely what the US condemned elsewhere.
When Russian President Vladimir Putin invoked NATO expansion and future security risks to justify the invasion of Ukraine, Washington rejected the logic outright.
Hypothetical threats do not authorize war, it insisted.
International order cannot survive if states attack whenever they perceive a possible future disadvantage.
If that principle bends, its authority weakens.
Beijing has long described Taiwan’s democratic consolidation, its military modernization and growing security ties with Washington as destabilizing trends.
The language of “future threat” already exists in Chinese strategic discourse. If preventive force becomes normalized in practice, that language gains rhetorical ammunition.
Precedent shapes perception. Perception shapes risk.
International norms survive not because they are universally obeyed, but because they are consistently defended.
When leading democracies carve out exceptions, the shield surrounding smaller democracies thins.
Taiwan’s leaders cannot afford distance from Washington; US support remains the cornerstone of deterrence.
However, uncritical endorsement of legally contested action risks undermining Taiwan’s own long-standing argument that power must be constrained by rules.
At home, the government must ensure that the public is acutely aware of cross-strait danger, while navigating partisan scrutiny.
Abroad, it must demonstrate reliability as an ally without surrendering the normative ground that distinguishes Taiwan from the authoritarian model it resists.
It is a narrow corridor — alliance solidarity on one side, legal consistency on the other.
Deterrence without legitimacy invites suspicion. Legitimacy without deterrence invites pressure. Taiwan has no luxury of choosing between the two.
The deeper danger lies in normalization.
Once preventive war becomes routine rather than exceptional, the vocabulary of “anticipated threat” becomes available to every major power.
In East Asia, that vocabulary carries explosive implications.
Taiwan’s security has always depended not only on military balance, but on the integrity of the rules-based order. When those rules appear selective, their deterrent value erodes.
When the ground shifts beneath international law, Taiwan stands closer to the fault line than most.
Bonnie Yushih Liao is an assistant professor in Tamkang University’s Department of Diplomacy and International Relations.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS