Unproductive Proposal for a "Silicon Barrier"Solution Unlikely to Succeed
There's no such thing as a "silicon shield," and it's high time we debunk this myth that's been floating around Taiwan's news lately.
While it might seem like a great idea on paper — turning Taiwan into the tech world's bulwark against China's grasping hands — it's ultimately a fallacy that's doing more harm than good.
The "silicon shield" concept revolves around the notion that the global powers, particularly the US, would jump to Taipei's defense in the event of an invasion, all because they can't afford to lose Taiwan's semiconductor industry, the backbone of cutting-edge chip production for everything from AI to defense technology.
However, the simple fact is that Taiwan's semiconductor supremacy is a relatively new development, with the US having been mindful of China's ambitions toward Taiwan since 1945. The presence of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co(TSMC) or not, Taiwan would still be strategically important to the US, even if it were as economically small as Guam.
Nor is democracy the driving force behind any potential military intervention. Taiwan was once a dictatorship, and the US still supported it then.Now, with a flourishing democracy, Taiwan's people need to wave their flag, not TSMC's.
The "silicon shield" argument is more about narrative-spinning on a global scale, and in terms of signaling, repeating it is counterproductive. It paints their partners as tech-obsessed mercenaries and Taiwanese as tech-hostage extortionists, neither of which is a positive image.
In reality, the US and Taiwan share common geopolitical interests, with the US keen on keeping China's fingers off Taiwan. This is not about the USrooting for Taiwan or being anti-China, but about two strategic entities protecting their interests.
However, Taiwan should avoid playing the tech-card in its public messaging. The tech industry can certainly provide economic leverage, but it should be left to the technocrats to handle. The goal should be to engage with and appeal to the people, making them care about Taiwan as more than just a high-tech manufacturing hub.
Even pragmatically speaking, relying on Taiwan's technological prowess as a guaranteed lifeline is risky. Semiconductor technology is fast-paced and volatile, and one day Taiwan might find itself obsolete. Moreover, China is well aware of the economic importance of Taiwan's chip industry, and any military action would undoubtedly target these critical manufacturing facilities.
There's a more significant danger lurking beneath the "silicon oligopoly" facade: the growing income inequality in Taiwan. For the younger generation struggling to make ends meet, the widening gap between the tech-haves and everybody else is a major source of resentment and a breeding ground for dangerous populism.
In conclusion, the "silicon shield" is not the savior Taiwan needs. It's dangerous to rely on economic dominance for security, and China won't hesitate to target critical industries in the event of an invasion. Instead, Taiwan should focus on strengthening its military capabilities and navigating diplomatic waters wisely.
In the realm of policy-and-legislation and politics, it's crucial for Taiwan to reconsider its reliance on the 'silicon shield' narrative when it comes to war-and-conflicts with China. The 'silicon shield' concept portrays Taiwan as a tech-hostage extortionist, which may not be in the best interest of shaping a positive image in general-news and international relations. Instead, Taiwan should prioritize strengthening its military capabilities and engaging with people on a national level, making them care about Taiwan as more than just a high-tech manufacturing hub.
