Between two fires: Taiwan's future amidst the New Cold War

“War is not an option” is altogether an ironic statement by the Taiwanese leadership, perhaps because it is not in any position to exercise options and it has none. China’s threat to “smash” Taiwan plainly depicts its offensive realism and cross-strait tensions are at an all-time high as Taipei prepares its citizens against an impending attack from Beijing by conducting civilian drills and is in constant hope of external support from Washington, which over the years has remained somewhat inconsistent. This looming disaster in the Indo-Pacific is being largely overlooked, whilst the mainstream press continues to present one-sided narratives on the Ukrainian situation, which is capturing global attention. The People’s Republic of China (PRC), also known as mainland China recognized by the United Nations, to consolidate its influence over the region, has been pursuing an imperialist-expansionist policy that also upset Indian neutrality decades earlier. Now, its main objective is to integrate the Republic of China (ROC), more commonly known as Taiwan, and for that, it opts for aggression as the means.

That a small-scale island bears the potential to constitute a grave threat to the territorial integrity of a great power in East Asia clearly illustrates the irony of international relations as much as it directs towards the strategic significance of the region for the state actors engaged. From the Chinese perspective, it is a minor yet key impediment in the pursuit of Chinese ‘revival and glory’, but at the same time, it forms an indispensable part of the First Island chain, adding to U.S. influence in the area. Additionally, the island is seen as being of paramount significance by the countries attempting to contain Chinese expansionism.

Warnings to Taiwan have been advanced for long but tensions escalated following the visit of Nancy Pelosi to the island nation last year, which also resulted in military drills and missile attacks quite similar to the Taiwan Strait crisis that occurred long back. Fear of a full-fledged maritime invasion has mounted since. The Taiwanese have been living under threat as the Chinese side continues to make unilateral claims and laws affecting Taiwan’s sovereignty and, on the other hand, the United States pledges its complete support to Taiwan’s defence. Amid a power struggle between two rival great powers, each of which has its interests and shows little or no concern for the advancement of the Taiwanese cause, the small nation finds itself at an impasse regarding its future decisions. The likely result of this situation could be that Taiwan becomes an ignition point in the New Cold War that has developed over the years. The anticipated scenario would be quite similar to the invasion of Afghanistan decades ago, which ultimately plunged the country into unending disorder.

“Sovereign equality of all nations” was the terminology of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations which if truth be told has turned out to be mere expression and in actuality, global relations have remained dominated by great powers. The world order following the fall of USSR became unipolar with the USA as the sole hegemon in international relations, however, among various steadily developing nations, an East Asian state showed remarkable progress both economically and militarily and soon, came to dominate the Asian scene and now gives a tight race to the “sole superpower”. The main rivalry still exists between China and the United States, with the former trying to undermine the latter’s hegemony while the latter attempting to contain the former. Taiwan is only a puppet in this conflict, struggling to assert its position while being directed and pressured to accept what is advantageous to either side.

A recent Chinese movie “Born to Fly” has “normalized” war with the United States just as though it is a matter of everyday geopolitik and speculative theories may soon turn to reality the way unpredictability has gripped world politics. The world’s most advanced semiconductor industry is undoubtedly the prime interest of the great powers, especially the United States. China wanting the same makes it even more crucial. Assuming, the war occurs, the semiconductor industry of the island would be the primary target of both sides. It is abundantly clear that neither side is interested in Taiwan’s interests; rather, they both strive to safeguard their purposes, even if Taiwan suffers, as seen by the recent US suggestion to destroy the vast industry as part of a “scorched earth” strategy, which was rejected by the Taiwanese government.

Although nations, when they entered Twenty-first Century, had long abandoned their imperialist plans. In case of China, old habits die hard. Maybe the Chinese Communist Party seeks to compensate the ‘Century of Humiliation’ by a ‘Century of Domination’. The concluding line of the recent White Paper on Taiwan released by PRC entitled “The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era” reads – “The historic goal of reuniting our motherland must be realized and will be realized”. Three assertions can be made in this regard. First, China’s contention that Taiwan has been historically its part, has no basis except for the fact that it remained part of the Qing Dynasty for less than a decade following which it was ceded to Japan, the surrender of which put the island under temporary administration of the then Republic of China troops and its status purported to be determined “later” remains undecided as according to the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan renounced its claim over few territories including Taiwan but it was not clear to whom? However, considering the independent survival of the island ever since, a position supported by the consensus of the populace who hold a distinct Taiwanese identity, independence remains the best option available. Second, to claim land on historical grounds seems unfeasible. An attack by Turkey on its neighbours citing that the Ottomans ruled over a vast area of West Asia which gives them an inherent historical right over the lands would be utterly unreasonable. Moreover, it was for political purposes that leaders in China began advocating for Taiwan’s merger with the mainland so much so that even the Chinese Communist Party, presently ruling China, had once called for Taiwan’s independence. And sarcastically, most parts of even the mainland have been forcefully occupied by “China Proper”. Finally, by clever interpretation of international law and various treaties, if even China constructs anything to its advantage, no country must be made bound by it for the former itself has a long record of disregarding the law and decisions of international tribunals and in its turn must not be allowed to make a selective approach invoking the law.

Meanwhile, the United States in its turn has promised an unlimited supply of weapons for Taiwan similar to Ukraine. Unfortunately, it appears that its on-the-ground assistance to Taiwan might as well be the same since US is not obliged by the treaty to defend it. Applying the deliberate ambiguity approach, the US stance towards China and Taiwan can be best described as a “see-saw” which fluctuated over time as per its convenience. The United States administration had almost abandoned Taiwan up until the Korean War after which it realized the importance of the little island in countering the Communist threat and continued aiding it. However, after the Sino-Soviet split, when the US realized the need to work with the PRC against USSR, it abruptly changed its “One China Policy” in favor of the mainland. The island accepted the ensuing unofficial links with the US despite a significant setback that was primarily perceived as a betrayal since, as was previously said, it had no other alternatives. Later, however, alarmed by the unceasing growth of China, US felt the need to suppress it and hence its commitments to Taiwan’s security increased over the years. But if America is so devoted to the cause of Taiwan’s welfare and protection, why did it prevent Taiwan from gaining nuclear technology? The tragic state of affairs surrounding Taiwan presently is also apparent by the fact that it cannot possibly survive in isolation from the two powers, China being its largest trading partner with United States in the second place. It has no alternative but to remain deadlocked between two giant players.

For those engaged, the current scenario in Ukraine serves as the ideal illustration. Given the estimated difficulty of an all-out maritime attack, Xi Jinping shouldn’t overestimate his forces.  Internal politics in Taiwan have a say in the matter. Prior to the present DPP administration, the KMT government was more or less soft towards its adversary, which led to an easement of tensions but discontent among the people. The hardline DPP nationalists are making the fatal mistake of blindly relying on US support and risking a global war. Considering, that if the US doesn’t support Taiwan in case of an invasion, the island would be obliterated, other nations will certainly lose their security guarantee, the reputation of the world’s policeman would be heavily affected and the shift of balance of power might affect India in the upcoming times. Such circumstances should not continue as they are further going to deteriorate and something has to be done post-haste otherwise the global attention might soon shift to the Indo-Pacific.

In politics, the question of ethics must not arise, for idealism has no operation. What should be accepted depends on how much practicality it enjoys. In the present case, both sides have their own selfish interests. Regardless of which side is justified, it has to be contended that the issue is about a weak nation being embroiled in a conflict that might have adverse effects on its existence as a whole with little or no effect on those perpetrating. Taiwan, despite having the support of its Western ally, is plagued by the spectre of the Red Dragon, and there is still uncertainty regarding the future foreign policies of those interested and likely to be impacted.

Thucydides had once rightly stated, that in international politics “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.