EDITORIAL: Taiwan would not give up easily

In an article published on Tuesday in The Atlantic, titled “Will Taiwan Just Give Up?”, journalist Simon Shuster emphasizes the unpredictability of the US as an ally under US President Donald Trump and cites diminishing faith in the US as a contributor to what he sees as waning determination to resist China.

As the title suggests, Shuster views a deal between Taiwan and China as an increasingly inevitable alternative to a costly war — one that Taiwan, lacking reliable allies and military capabilities, would eventually be destined to lose.

He focuses on Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) — her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in April, her party’s ties with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and her optimism that Taiwan could strike a deal with China while preserving its freedom.

However, one major flaw with Shuster’s argument is that it risks conflating the KMT’s abandonment of its once staunchly anti-communist position and Cheng’s increasingly shameless capitulation toward China with the views of the Taiwanese population as a whole.

To be fair, he acknowledges that Cheng’s election as KMT chair was decided by only about 65,000 KMT members — a tiny fraction of Taiwan’s 23 million people.

Her influence primarily stems from her position as party leader given its legislative control, particularly over defense spending, he said.

Yet the article attributes Cheng’s delusionally optimistic vision for cross-strait relations, the positions of several KMT figures and retired military officers, and comments of others he interviewed to an apparent uncertainty among Taiwanese over whether a deal with China is the right choice — a conclusion that is not supported by broader public evidence.

A June survey by the Taoyuan National Development Education Foundation found that support for cross-strait political negotiations in Taiwan has fallen by more than 16 percent since 2018, while only 3.2 percent of Taiwanese favor unification with China.

The Mainland Affairs Council found that more than 80 percent of Taiwanese reject Beijing’s “one country, two systems” framework, while 88 percent believe Taiwan’s future should be decided by its 23 million people — a right that would disappear were the nation to come under China’s control.

An Academia Sinica survey found that nearly 60 percent of Taiwanese would be willing to resist a Chinese invasion “at all costs” regardless of US assistance.

These figures do not paint the picture of a nation preparing to quietly surrender, but one that understands the risks of war, recognizes uncertainty and refuses to regard surrender to China as a solution.

Diminishing confidence in the US and distrust of China are not mutually exclusive. Taiwanese can recognize Washington’s volatility while acknowledging that Beijing has repeatedly denied its sovereignty and openly sought to sabotage its democratic system.

Shuster rightly points out that many Taiwanese would prefer to maintain the “status quo,” but it is important to understand what “status quo” means in this context. It means maintaining democracy, freedom of speech and the press, the ability to trade freely with the rest of the world and the right to go about life without interference from Beijing.

Most Taiwanese are well aware that a political deal with China would mean waving goodbye to that “status quo.” They see what has happened to democratic institutions and political freedoms in Hong Kong, and there is little reason to assume Taiwan would receive a fundamentally different bargain.

History further illustrates why Taiwanese should not be mistaken for a passive population. The democratization movement of the late 20th century, the Sunflower movement in 2014 and more recent mass demonstrations over issues such as food safety are proof of a society accustomed to holding those in power accountable, organizing and demanding change.

Shuster’s article identifies genuine concerns. Gone are the days that Taiwan could assume that the US would automatically come to its defense. The nation’s military preparedness, defense procurement and societal resilience require serious attention, but acknowledging these vulnerabilities and admitting defeat are two different things.

Taiwanese might be uncertain about Washington’s response in a cross-strait crisis. They might disagree on arms procurements or deterrence strategies. However, those debates are evidence of a society grappling with how to preserve its way of life.

It would be foolish to ignore these issues; but it would be equally foolish to conclude that the only alternatives are an unwinnable war or submission to Beijing.

The choice Taiwanese face is not whether to trust the US or China, but how to defend their democratic way of life — something history has proven they would not give up so easily.