Tuning in on Taiwan
Issue 77 - 9 November 2021 (7.5-min read)
It’s tough to be Taiwan these days. China has been sending fighter jets close to its airspace for more than a year, with the frequency and proximity of those unwelcome visits increasing manifold in recent weeks.
The rest of the world cannot be too forthcoming jumping to Taiwan’s defence either. US President Joe Biden declared, at first, that the US has a commitment to defend Taiwan in case of an attack from China, only for the White House to walk back and reiterate its official policy of strategic ambiguity.
This week, in The Global Tiller, we are tuning in on Taiwan to understand what’s going on, how the 'strategic ambiguity' policy puts it in a unique place on the global stage and why semiconductors and pangolins may provide some clues as to where this crisis is headed.
To understand what’s going on in Taiwan, it’s important to understand its history. The island of Taiwan used to be connected to the larger Asian landmass some ten thousand years ago but sea level rise eventually cut it off. Around 6,000 years ago, some farmers from mainland China settled here and, after that, it was ruled by the Chinese Qing dynasty and the Japanese.
After World War II when Japanese-occupied land was returned to China, it included Taiwan but it was not really clear who in China was in control. Then the communist forces defeated the Republic of China in 1949 and the latter were forced to flee to Taiwan and seize control there. Since then, Taiwan has established itself as a democracy with the implicit support of the US and other Western nations under the policy of 'strategic ambiguity' — acknowledging China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan while continuing to engage with Taiwan unofficially.
What this means is that countries, like the US and European states, occupy buildings in Taiwan and have staff that does the same work as an embassy but they don’t call it an embassy. If your French passport expired in Taiwan, for example, you’ll get it reissued in Taiwan but it will say it was issued in Korea.
So far, this vague arrangement has worked. Taiwan has been able to develop a vibrant democracy, a thriving economy and even compete in the Olympics (as long as they call themselves 'Chinese Taipei'). The US has helped it establish a military and even struck arms deals, as recently as August.
But, since the takeover of Hong Kong, Chinese President Xi Jinping has been claiming that reunification must be fulfilled and that’s why Taiwan’s airspace is seeing more and more Chinese fighter jets.
Are the US and China just flexing their muscles or are they going to go to war over Taiwan? A Chinese journalist is skeptic. He explains that neither China nor the US see any strategic gains from breaking the status quo but he does not dismiss the tiny groups of hawks present on each side who may benefit from war. As for Taiwan, a vast majority wants to maintain the status quo: maintaining de facto independence but avoiding retaliation from China.
As a small country, Taiwan is counting on unlikely strategies to gain support from the rest of the world. The first is pangolins. In much the same way as 'panda diplomacy' paved a new way for China to engage with the world, Taiwan is lending pangolins in an attempt to win friends and exert greater influence.
The other way in which Taiwan can exert influence on both China and the US is through semiconductors. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co or TSMC is the world’s largest manufacturer of semiconductor chips that basically runs the world’s tech. This one company makes the chips that runs our phones, laptops, refrigerators, cars and more — a fact laid bare when a recent shortage of chips caused a meltdown in the global auto industry.
Tech manufacturing countries may have realised the perils of their over reliance on this one company but, until they develop the same expertise, Taiwan holds strategic power. In fact, Taiwan has taken steps to prevent its engineers from being poached by China.
It may be too simplistic to assume that this will be enough to deter war in the region but, besides Beijing and Washington, the Taiwanese city of Hsinchu (host to the headquarters of TSMC) may find it has an important seat at the table.
Inspired by Taiwan’s unique strategies to build its defences, perhaps we should also be asking if there are other ways to resolve this 70-year-old issue besides the two stark options of war or status quo. Is there a way to agree on a settlement that works for everyone, and mostly for the 23.5 million people of Taiwan?
Until next week, take care and stay safe.
Hira - Editor - The Global Tiller
H.E. President Surangel Whipps Jr. on COP26, climate change, geopolitics and hope
Don’t miss the latest episode of our podcast Pacific Toks with the President of the Republic of Palau, Surangel Whipps Jr. We catch him while he’s in Glasgow for the COP26 summit and talk to him about climate change and the role the Pacific region can play in pushing for more action and commitments to tackle this existential threat. We also discuss the challenges our region is facing right now, including COVID and geopolitical tensions. He shares his views on leadership and on hope as he helps his community navigate these unique times.
…and now what?
Fluidity. This has always been the word that comes to my mind when I visit Taiwan. Its ability to adapt, to avoid hitting the wall of geopolitics, to live despite the pressure, the attempt to get the best of all situations.
Rigidity. This is often the word that comes to mind when thinking about global geopolitics. It’s about posture, standing your ground, showing your strength to prevent others from attacking. Way too often geopolitics seems to be a tug of war, where we try to maintain balance just enough to not push others into a catastrophe.
But as the world is trying to find efficient ways to deal with climate change in COP26, the difference between those two words — fluidity and rigidity — seems to be at the heart of the problem. Are we willing to adapt or do we want to maintain the status quo until all hell breaks loose?
Taiwan is a case study on geopolitics gone wrong. Wrong because it fails to take into consideration the will of the people who may not be interested in those power struggles and political affirmations. Wrong because it’s about maintaining a situation by making sure you immobilise your opponents instead of working with them and finding a compromise.
The current standoff between the US the China reminds me of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with two major powers using an island community as their chess board to test each other’s limits. In this case of 1962, it took two very wise and calm leaders to avoid putting the world beyond the brink of war.
Today, the question is: do we have wise and calm leaders to solve the issue once again? Time will tell but it’s saddening to see that, 60 years later, we’re still using the same ways to solve our global issues. Who’s going to be the bigger person in the room? Who will eventually decide to live by its values but also be open to dialogue and ask the other for a kind gesture, for a middle ground?
Isn’t that how we reached the Paris Accord in 2015? Countries agreed on a middle ground, to take the high road. Isn’t that how we reached the Iran Nuclear Deal? Everyone took a step towards each other.
As history is being rewritten by some, it seems that leadership is not being rewritten at all. It’s still about power, about who has the biggest… army. Is it eventually just because we, as a species, cannot sustain a different type of leadership? Are we not ready for a more collaborative, inclusive and peaceful leadership? Or are we convinced we’re not capable. To change the type of leadership, do we need to change leaders?
We can find inspiration in the region that lies between the two big powers fighting over Taiwan: the Pacific. A region that favours consensus over voting, a region that has put forward leaders, such as the current presidents of Taiwan and New Zealand, who have shown new ways of leading: more humane, more empathic yet still efficient and determined. Could this make those fragile giants collapse and finally open the way for new ways?
As the fate of Taiwan is decided in a time where the fate of the world also hangs in the balance, let us make sure that the parallels to the Cuban Crisis and those echoes from the past are not taking us back but instead influencing us to move forward, and learn our lessons for a more empathic, inclusive and existential leadership.
Philippe - Founder - Pacific Ventury