As the international order shifts from one of principles to power, the most fatal error for political leaders is not holding differing positions, but misjudging reality.
This year, the world is undergoing a rapid restructuring. US President Donald Trump intervening militarily in the Middle East and attacking Iran is not merely a regional war — it marks the beginning of a reshaping of the global power structure. The international order is no longer governed by treaties and abstract norms. Rather, it has returned to a reality in which military power and strategic alliances determine the landscape. Against this backdrop, Taiwan’s strategic position has become clearer than ever before — there is no longer room for ambiguity or illusion.
However, some political forces in Taiwan remain stuck in outdated assumptions. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) line of thinking — advocating for maintaining ambiguity, avoiding provoking China and preventing overreliance on the US — appears rational, but it is built upon an international order that no longer exists. The problem lies in the mistaken belief that ambiguity can mitigate risk, that concessions can be exchanged for security and that distance can take the place of alliances — this is a classic strategic error.
In a system dominated by power, neutrality does not exist. A country that lacks a clear position is not respected, but exploited. For China, ambiguity creates room for sustained pressure. For the US, it implies unreliability. Thus, the result is not enhanced security, but passivity and fragility. “Avoiding provoking China” is itself based on a false premise — Beijing’s strategic objective is not to respond to Taiwan, but to alter the “status quo” and expand its influence.
With regard to reducing reliance on the US, the problem is not exercising caution against dependence, but the absence of any viable alternative. Refusing to cooperate with the democratic camp equates to choosing a side within the global power structure. The key is not relying — or not relying — on the US, but ensuring that Taiwan becomes a strategically valuable partner. Only by becoming indispensable could security be incorporated into broader strategic calculations.
The KMT’s problem is that it still bases its strategy on the international environment of the past three decades, seeking security through ambiguity and balance. As the world has entered a quasi-wartime system, such a strategy would only cause Taiwan to lose its initiative.
What Taiwan needs is a strategic positioning that aligns with present realities. Militarily, it should bolster asymmetric capabilities and develop a porcupine defense strategy to raise the cost of aggression. Politically, it should clearly embed itself within the Indo-Pacific region’s democratic system. Economically, it should consolidate its semiconductor advantage, centered on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Finally, it must reinforce its institutional and rhetorical legitimacy to stand firmly in reality and in principle.
History has repeatedly proven that the cost of miscalculation exceeds that of conflict itself. Ukraine failed to establish deterrence in time and ultimately paid the price of a full-scale war. Hong Kong lost its freedoms under promises that lacked real guarantees. As the international landscape and order have already changed, the KMT continues to navigate it using an outdated map — and as such, might ultimately arrive at the wrong destination.
Hsiao Hsi-huei is a freelance writer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
When 17,000 troops from the US, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Canada, France and New Zealand spread across the Philippine archipelago for the Balikatan military exercise, running from tomorrow through May 8, the official language would be about interoperability, readiness and regional peace. However, the strategic subtext is becoming harder to ignore: The exercises are increasingly about the military geography around Taiwan. Balikatan has always carried political weight. This year, however, the exercise looks different in ways that matter not only to Manila and Washington, but also to Taipei. What began in 2023 as a shift toward a more serious deterrence posture
RSS