Skip to main content

Like Venezuela, is Taiwan also 'placed' on Washington’s chopping block?

By Biljana Vankovska
 
The New Year did not begin with hope or joy, except for the arms dealers. More precisely, for the military-industrial-media-academic-NGO complex that feeds on permanent war. Orders are flowing, profits are booming, and blood has once again become a growth sector. For any normal society, pirates belong in adventure films, not in the civilian power corridor. Yet Venezuela, more precisely, its legally elected president Nicolás Maduro, became the first trophy of the New Year.
A week after the grotesque “spectacle” of assault and kidnapping, analysts remain confused. It is not because the facts are unclear, but because they are often imprisoned by prefabricated narratives, many of which they themselves manufacture. Such is the “Taiwan issue” for quite some time. About Venezuela, much has already been said in a brilliant and insightful way. But let’s focus on the rest of the story. Much of it was delivered by Trump personally, with no shame and no restraint. In a grotesque parody of Kant, he openly declared himself “above international law,” constrained only by the 'moral law' within. To invoke morality and Trump in the same sentence—under the shadow of Epstein and ICE death squads—is not irony but obscenity.
Yet even as Venezuela is under tremendous pressure, this modern Nero is already drafting the next targets in what increasingly resembles an imperial suicide note. Names roll out like betting odds: Cuba. Greenland (dragging NATO and the EU into the madness). Iran. Gaza, conveniently erased once more, allowing Israel to continue its “peaceful” extermination without distraction. In this grotesque sequence, one territory stands out—not even a state, but a pawn. Taiwan.
In times of general deception, one has to repeat well-known facts tirelessly: Taiwan is the island province of the People’s Republic of China. It is according to UN resolutions, international law, and even Washington’s own foreign policy. The “One China” principle is not contested in law or diplomacy; it is challenged only by hawks, profiteers, and useful idiots. And yet, Taiwan has been deliberately inserted into the imperial narrative as the next “victim.” We saw it clearly when a New York Times journalist asked Trump whether the assault on Venezuela sets a precedent. Taiwan was invoked immediately: What if China attacks Taiwan because it lies in its 'hemisphere'? (By the way, China immediately responded to this idea about a world of hemispheres.) The danger lies not in Trump’s answer, but in the question itself. It equates Venezuela with Taiwan, international crime against a sovereign state with the internal affairs of another state, thus sustaining the fiction of a 'small, democratic Taiwan' threatened by a monstrous China.
What Western discourse avoids saying plainly is that Taiwan is historically and legally part of China. The same people live on both sides of the Strait, separated by unresolved history, the residue of an unfinished civil war. This is not a matter of international security. It is China’s internal question.
What turns Taiwan into a 'global crisis' is not Beijing, but Washington.
For decades, and with escalating intensity in recent years, the United States has weaponized Taiwan: politically, ideologically, and militarily. Just before the New Year, Washington concluded the largest arms deal in Taiwan’s history, funneling billions to U.S. defense corporations. China responded as it always has: calmly, legally, and firmly. Military exercises on its own territory (a fact Western media systematically suppresses) sent a clear message: China will not allow the dismemberment of its sovereignty.
Predictably, Western experts scream that China is preparing for a military solution. In truth, it is certain Taiwanese politicians who are playing Russian roulette, feeding the U.S. war machine while endangering their own people. They arm the island against its own country, against a nuclear superpower, while pretending this is “ self-defense.” It is political theater bordering on insanity.
Some compare Taiwan to Ukraine, and they are right, though not in the way they intend. Ukraine was militarized, instrumentalized, and sacrificed. Taiwan’s situation is worse. Ukraine was at least a state. Taiwan is not. It cannot join the UN. It cannot join NATO. And despite illusions carefully cultivated in Taipei, no U.S. soldier will die for Taiwan. Nor is Taiwan able to deter China’s military advancement, if a decision of that sort is made in Beijing.
So why is Washington draining the island’s resources? Why force military spending of 5 percent of GDP on a territory outside NATO? Why manufacture hysteria where no war was inevitable? The answer is obvious: profit, containment, and geopolitical sabotage.
The result is political backlash. The leader of the Democratic Progressive Party, the Taiwanese “Zelensky”, now faces impeachment. Public dissatisfaction is growing. Ordinary people understand the arithmetic of war: fewer hospitals, fewer schools, fewer pensions—more weapons, more fear, more dependency.
The so-called Taiwan question is China’s internal affair, and Beijing has approached it with patience unmatched in modern geopolitics. A Chinese proverb says: “A Chinese does not raise a hand against a Chinese.” War has never been the plan. Reunification has been pursued through time, development, and restraint.
The real recklessness lies elsewhere. Some Taiwanese elites believe U.S. promises—despite the long cemetery of abandoned allies. They waste resources chasing an impossible independence. And they sabotage their own future, which clearly lies in reconciliation with a rising China—one that builds power through economy, infrastructure, education, and technology, not through occupation and destruction.
Taiwanese society itself does not want war. Despite political divisions, there is internal coexistence and the skills to reach a compromise over sensitive issues peacefully. Who benefits from destroying this balance? This is just a rhetorical question, of course.
Venezuela and Taiwan have nothing in common. Except for one thing: both have been placed on Washington’s chopping block. The only real danger comes from the hyper-imperial center that, like a drug addict nearing overdose, risks dragging the entire world down with it.
---
This article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War. Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia. She is a member of the No Cold War collective

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests. 

Conversations from the margins: Caste, land and social justice in South Asia

By Prof K S Chalam*  Vidya Bhushan Rawat ’s three-volume body of conversational works constitutes an ambitious and largely unprecedented intellectual intervention into the study of marginalisation in South Asia . Drawing upon the method of extended dialogue, Rawat documents voices from across caste, region, ideology, and national boundaries to construct a living archive of dissent, memory, and struggle. 

Managing water in an era of climate stress: Indonesia’s governance challenge

By Alejandra Amor, Mansee Bal Bhargava  Indonesia, like many fast-developing nations including India, is grappling with a deepening water crisis driven by both human pressures and climate-induced impacts. Despite being home to more than 1,000 river basins, a majority of Indonesian households continue to face serious challenges in accessing safe drinking water and sanitation. Water resource management remains constrained by high levels of contamination, excessive dependence on groundwater, declining water retention capacity, and inadequate wastewater management systems.