China’s Chessboard: Why Taiwan Is the Linchpin
Beijing now talks, plans, and acts as if the entire globe is one strategic chessboard, with every move mapped against its long-term aims. A new paper lays out that worldview plainly: the entire world is one chessboard, and the Taiwan question is at its center. That framing matters for how democracies should see Beijing’s ambitions.
The paper’s core idea puts Taiwan at the pivot of China’s regional and global strategy. For Beijing, controlling the island is not only about territory, it is about signaling power and rewriting regional order. That makes the Taiwan issue far more than a bilateral dispute; it is central to China’s grand strategy.
From a Republican perspective, this is an irresistible call to clarity and strength. We have to treat Beijing’s moves like what they are: deliberate steps toward dominance. Weak signals or muddled policy only encourage bolder behavior.
Strategic thinking described in the document treats relationships, trade, and military posture as interconnected pieces on a board. Economic coercion, technological competition, and military pressure are coordinated tools, not isolated problems. Recognizing that coordination changes how you prioritize responses.
Taiwan sits at the intersection of technology, security, and alliances. The island is critical to chip manufacturing and high-end tech supply chains, and that gives it outsized strategic importance. Losing influence there would have cascading consequences across allied defense and economic resilience.
Beijing’s approach is long term and patient, often preferring to win without fighting. That means political infiltration, economic leverage, and legal pressure get equal billing with military options. Democracies must meet that patient, layered strategy with persistent, coherent countermeasures.
Policy responses need to be practical and deterrent-focused rather than purely rhetorical. Strengthening alliances, securing supply chains, and modernizing defense posture are necessary parts of a response set. Clarity of purpose matters just as much as capability.
On the military side, credible deterrence must be paired with readiness to act if deterrence fails. That requires realistic planning and investments in asymmetric capabilities that complicate any aggressive calculus. Showing resolve without reckless provocation is the hard, responsible line to walk.
Economically, reducing vulnerability in critical technologies and diversifying supply chains is a national security project. Public policy should prioritize resilience in semiconductors, communications, and other strategic sectors. Doing so undercuts Beijing’s ability to weaponize economic ties.
Diplomacy and public messaging also have to be sharper and consistent with national purpose. Exposure of coercive tactics, together with visible support for partners in the Indo Pacific, shifts the narrative and raises the political cost of aggression. A pragmatic, resolute stance aligns strategy with values without inviting unnecessary escalation.