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.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS