The realpolitik of the situation is that given a choice between doing business with PRC or ROC, pragmatic leaders even in “free/democratic” countries would choose the PRC because of its economic clout. The present 14 states that recognize Taiwan and the downward trajectory is clear to extrapolate.
Why does the US support oil or mineral rich countries even though many are dictatorships with poor human rights records? And now, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and a shortage of oil, suddenly Iran is looking a bit less of a pariah in the West. In these cases, these countries exert influence because of natural resources.
Looking at some possibilities: Taiwan can’t compete when it comes to cheap, mass labor, or production capacity like China. It can’t really compete as well with things like software programming with India. Neither on natural resources. Or agricultural output. Or a strategic geographic location, like Singapore, Panama, Egypt/Suez Canal or Israel. Or religious importance, like the Vatican, Saudi Arabia or Israel. (Of course there is also nukes but let’s not go there)
The conclusion really, is that Taiwan’s one and only leverage in the realpolitik equation is innovative technological exports. In the past, it was semiconductors, but Taiwan should already be looking and laying the foundation for the next big thing as a matter of national importance. What could it be? Quantum computers? A cure for cancer? Room temperature superconductors?
There should be a framework for assessing potential innovations of national strategic importance, in order to maintain a monopoly on the innovation. I am certain that patents of inventions of strategic value such as the above would not be respected by some countries on “national interest” grounds.
Technological innovation is also necessary for a military with a qualitative edge, and for an economy that can pay for a strong deterrent.
I believe that what this means for Taiwan today, and in the future, is that good education must be emphasized, creativity must be allowed to flourish (for example it can be stifled by authoritarian classrooms or too much bureaucracy), the government should encourage in any way innovation & start-ups and culture itself must embrace a can-do, risk-taking and venture-seeking mentality. Which means people must be willing to try and fail, and others must be willing to overlook failures.
Furthermore, in comparison to authoritarian (perhaps even totalitarian) states that tell people what/how to think, freedom is actually synergistic with the goal of more creativity and innovation. I believe that this is an intrinsic advantage free countries have over authoritarian ones.
As an academic I don’t really like words like “only” or “always”. But in this case I believe it to be so. What do you all think?
Recommended reading:
TL;DR summary: Everyone says they want creativity but we actually harbor hidden biases against it, because creative solutions represent disruption and change, which we humans generally do not like. Furthermore, it takes guts to vouch for a new idea, while it entails little risk to play the skeptic and criticize something novel.