Chinese leadership believes time is not on its side regarding Taiwan. The growing sense of a distinct Taiwanese identity, especially among younger generations, creates pressure to act before a political 'reunification' becomes impossible, thus increasing the risk of military action.
Related Insights
The current era of multipolarity, global economic integration, and tensions between rising and incumbent powers (like China and the US) is more analogous to the early 20th century before WWI than the bipolar Cold War. This historical parallel carries stark warnings about the potential for conflict.
The dynamic between a rising power (China) and a ruling one (the U.S.) fits the historical pattern of the "Thucydides' trap." In 12 of the last 16 instances of this scenario, the confrontation has ended in open war, suggesting that a peaceful resolution is the exception, not the rule.
China's showcase of advanced military hardware, like its new aircraft carrier, is primarily a psychological tool. The strategy is to build a military so 'forbiddingly huge' that the US would hesitate to engage, allowing China to achieve goals like reabsorbing Taiwan without fighting. This suggests their focus is on perceived power to deter intervention.
Contrary to the perception of Taiwan as uniformly pro-independence, its government is politically divided. While the prime minister is pro-independence, the parliament is controlled by the KMT party, which now advocates for reunification with mainland China, creating an internal political avenue for Beijing's influence.
China's strategy for Taiwan likely mirrors its 2019 Hong Kong takeover. Instead of a direct military assault, Beijing will use political influence, espionage, and legislative changes to create administrative bridges, making any physical resistance illegal before troops ever move in.
A historian analogizes Taiwan's precarious situation to three pre-WWI flashpoints. It's a territorial claim (Alsace), a likely source of a great power crisis (Bosnia), and a strategic calculation for intervention by a global power (Belgium), making it exceptionally volatile.
The most significant point of friction for ordinary Chinese citizens is the constant U.S. military presence near its borders, such as naval patrols in the Taiwan Strait and bases in South Korea and Japan. This sense of being militarily encircled is a more potent source of public frustration than economic disputes.
President Xi Jinping used a phone call with President Trump not just for bilateral issues, but to strategically signal displeasure with Japan's hawkish stance on Taiwan. This "shadow play" diplomacy shows China leveraging its relationship with the U.S. to indirectly manage and warn other nations, making the U.S. a channel for its geopolitical messaging.
The "Japan panic" was rooted in fears of economic subordination—like having a Japanese boss or seeing landmarks bought by Japanese firms. In contrast, anxiety about China is dominated by concerns over direct military conflict and a technological arms race, a much starker form of geopolitical rivalry.
Recent trade talks deliberately sidestepped core geopolitical issues like Taiwan and the South China Sea. This highlights that economic agreements are merely treating symptoms. The fundamental problem is a geopolitical power struggle, which will continue to undermine any economic progress.
