On October 10, during Taiwan’s National Day speech, President Lai Ching-te took a resolute stance on defending Taiwan’s sovereignty, calling out China’s ambitions and asserting that Beijing had no right to represent the self-governing island. His speech underscored Taiwan’s determination to resist any form of annexation or encroachment by mainland China. However, this defiant rhetoric has provoked a swift and stern response from Beijing, culminating in a record-breaking show of military force.
In the days following Lai’s speech, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) sent 153 warplanes to circle and intimidate Taiwan in a 24-hour exercise, signaling Beijing’s intent to reinforce its claims over the island. This unprecedented military maneuver served as a direct warning to Taipei and a reminder of China’s willingness to escalate tensions if necessary.
The root of this standoff is not new. Beijing considers Taiwan to be a “sacred and inseparable part” of China’s territory—a historical and ideological stance dating back to the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Yet, on the island, there is a different perspective. Taiwan has functioned as a self-governing democracy with a distinct political system, and the majority of its population favors maintaining the status quo rather than reuniting with the mainland. As cross-strait relations deteriorate, the Taiwan issue increasingly takes center stage in the broader geopolitical contest between China and the United States.
Taiwan’s significance in the global geopolitical arena goes beyond territorial claims. The island is a key player in the global economy, serving as a major hub for the production of semiconductors, the critical components that power everything from smartphones to advanced military technologies. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) dominates the global semiconductor industry, making the island indispensable to the world’s technology supply chain. This has made Taiwan not only economically important to the U.S. but also strategically vital to Washington’s global interests.
Despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations between Washington and Taipei, the U.S. maintains close unofficial ties and is a key supplier of arms to Taiwan. The U.S. has also provided military training and support through indirect channels to bolster Taiwan’s defenses against potential Chinese aggression. Although arms sales have fluctuated under different administrations, the strategic relationship remains intact.
On several occasions, U.S. President Joe Biden has suggested that Washington would come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a Chinese invasion. However, such commitments remain intentionally ambiguous due to the U.S.’s “One China” policy, which recognizes Beijing as the legitimate government of China while maintaining unofficial ties with Taipei. This policy, crafted decades ago, has been the backbone of U.S. diplomacy in the region, but it is increasingly tested by China’s assertiveness.
The question that hangs over the region is whether China will attempt to take Taiwan by force. Beijing has made it clear that it seeks peaceful reunification, but it has not ruled out the use of military action if necessary. The current military drills around Taiwan serve as a constant reminder of China’s growing military capabilities and its willingness to intimidate Taipei.
If China were to launch an invasion, it would likely draw in the United States and possibly other regional powers such as Japan and Australia, creating a larger regional conflict. For China, the stakes are high. Successfully bringing Taiwan under its control would cement President Xi Jinping’s legacy and mark a historic victory for the Communist Party. It would also solidify China’s dominance in the Asia-Pacific region and serve as a major blow to U.S. influence in the area.
However, the economic and political costs of such a conflict would be enormous. Taiwan’s defenses, combined with potential U.S. intervention, could turn any military operation into a protracted and devastating war. Furthermore, the economic repercussions of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait would be felt worldwide, particularly in the tech sector, where supply chains could be severely disrupted.
As tensions rise between Taipei and Beijing, the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election could play a pivotal role in shaping the future of the Taiwan Strait. Currently, two major candidates stand out: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Each offers distinct approaches to U.S. foreign policy, and both could have significant implications for the China-Taiwan issue.
During his presidency, Donald Trump often took a confrontational approach toward China. His administration launched a trade war with Beijing, imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, and sought to restrict China’s access to American technology. Yet, Trump also presented himself as a dealmaker who could negotiate with adversaries, including China. His transactional approach to foreign policy often left U.S. allies questioning Washington’s long-term commitment to shared security interests.
When it comes to Taiwan, Trump’s record is mixed. While he increased arms sales to Taiwan, he also criticized the island for supposedly benefiting from U.S. semiconductor production at America’s expense. His focus on the U.S. economy and his sometimes isolationist rhetoric raises questions about whether Trump would intervene in a potential conflict between Taiwan and China. Some analysts believe that Trump could be willing to cut a deal with Beijing that compromises Taiwan’s sovereignty in exchange for economic benefits for the U.S., such as trade concessions or investments from China.
This possibility deeply concerns Taipei, which relies on U.S. military and political support to deter Beijing’s ambitions. A Trump return to the White House could mean greater uncertainty for Taiwan’s future.
Kamala Harris, currently the U.S. Vice President, has positioned herself as a strong supporter of multilateralism and international alliances. Under a Harris presidency, Washington would likely continue to maintain its support for Taiwan and uphold its commitments to U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific region. Harris’s approach to foreign policy aligns closely with that of the Biden administration, which has sought to counter China’s influence by strengthening ties with democratic nations in the region, such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
While Harris may offer more stability for Taiwan, her foreign policy experience is relatively limited, and it remains unclear how she would navigate the complex dynamics of the Taiwan Strait. Harris’s administration would likely continue the Biden-era strategy of “de-risking” rather than “decoupling” from China. This means maintaining economic ties while reducing dependencies on critical sectors such as technology, which are vulnerable to Chinese influence. For Beijing, a Harris presidency may leave room for negotiation, but it would not dramatically alter the trajectory of U.S.-China relations.
From Beijing’s perspective, the U.S. election holds significant consequences for its long-term strategy, both in terms of economic recovery and its ambitions in the Taiwan Strait. Xi Jinping, China’s powerful leader, is navigating multiple crises. His administration is grappling with a slowing economy, an escalating housing crisis, and increasing protests at home. At the same time, Beijing’s diplomatic ties with the West have been strained by its support for Russia in the Ukraine war and its aggressive actions in the South China Sea.
Resolving the Taiwan issue would secure Xi’s place in history as a leader who restored China’s territorial integrity. However, the risk of international isolation and economic sanctions, similar to those imposed on Russia, looms large. Beijing’s decision-making process is complicated by the fact that Taiwan is not merely a territorial dispute—it is also deeply tied to China’s national identity and the legitimacy of the Communist Party.
Xi’s relationship with Washington will depend on who occupies the White House in 2024. Trump’s unpredictability offers both risks and opportunities for Beijing. On the one hand, Trump’s focus on economic deals could lead to compromises on Taiwan. On the other hand, his potential return to office could reignite the trade war and further isolate China from Western markets.
In contrast, Harris represents a continuation of current U.S. policies, which emphasize balancing competition with China while maintaining alliances. While not as antagonistic as Trump, Harris would still likely uphold the strategic containment of China, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.
The Taiwan Strait remains one of the most dangerous flashpoints in international geopolitics. As China ramps up its military pressure on Taiwan and the U.S. presidential election looms, the stakes for Taipei are higher than ever. Whether under Trump or Harris, U.S. policy towards Taiwan will remain crucial in shaping the future of the region.
