Following a week-long visit to Taiwan, I have reassessed my perspective on U.S. foreign policy toward Taiwan. My initial belief was that the U.S. should prioritize strengthening Taiwan’s defensive capabilities, primarily by transforming it into a “porcupine” through increased arms sales and constructing an anti-hegemonic coalition in the region. While I continue to support these objectives, my visit has revealed that military support alone is insufficient. A comprehensive strategy must also include a robust soft power component aimed at fostering political unity, morale, and military readiness in Taiwan.

From the outset of my trip, it became clear that Taiwanese society and politics are more nuanced than I expected, and these complexities limit the effectiveness of purely military assistance. The ongoing rivalry between Taiwan’s two main political parties, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Kuomintang (KMT), has led to political disunity that hampers the full use of defense capabilities. This political fragmentation contributes to a weakened sense of national morale and readiness.

Although there is widespread agreement that avoiding war is desirable, there is no consensus on whether deterrence through militarization is the best path forward. Even if militarization were universally supported, Taiwan’s aging population and relatively comfortable lifestyle pose challenges. Conscription, currently set at a year, is far from adequate in preparing Taiwan’s youth for the type of civic and military readiness found in nations like Israel or South Korea. Compounding this is the belief that Taiwan’s geographic defenses, particularly the formidable Taiwan Strait, provide a sufficient buffer against invasion, giving many Taiwanese a false sense of security.

Further, there is a prevalent assumption, encouraged by both the DPP and certain parts of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, that America will unquestionably intervene in the event of an invasion. This belief diminishes the perceived need for Taiwan to harden its defenses and mobilize its population.

While expanding Taiwan’s defensive capabilities remains essential, the most immediate and impactful steps the U.S. can take involve developing a sophisticated soft power strategy aimed at boosting Taiwanese unity, morale, and identity. Military aid is vital, but without a cohesive society that is willing to defend itself, its effectiveness is limited.

This soft power strategy should focus on two key themes: strengthening Taiwan’s claim to authentic Chinese identity, and positioning Taiwan as the model of “modern Chinese” society.

A critical but underused asset in Taiwan’s soft power arsenal is its claim to authentic Chinese identity. The Taiwanese use traditional Chinese characters, which were the norm for thousands of years of Chinese history. In contrast, Mainland China, under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), adopted simplified characters to promote literacy among its population. While this move was practical for the CCP’s goals, it altered the depth and meaning of the written language. For example, the traditional character for “love” contains the symbol for “heart,” whereas the simplified version removes this symbol, literally stripping the heart from love.

This linguistic distinction gives Taiwan a cultural edge over the CCP, especially in terms of preserving China’s rich literary and cultural heritage. Additionally, Taiwan houses the National Palace Museum, which holds many of China’s most treasured art and antiquities—further reinforcing Taiwan’s connection to the authentic Chinese identity.

America can use these facts to emphasize Taiwan’s position as the custodian of true Chinese heritage. By promoting Taiwan’s cultural legitimacy, we can undermine the CCP’s narrative that it represents the definitive Chinese identity. This approach avoids stoking Taiwanese nationalism to the point of independence, which would undoubtedly provoke Beijing, while still reinforcing Taiwan’s position as an integral part of Chinese civilization.

In addition to its historical legitimacy, Taiwan represents a compelling alternative to the CCP’s vision of modern Chinese society. While the CCP’s social contract promises material prosperity in exchange for political control and the curtailing of civil liberties, Taiwan offers a different model—one where democracy, freedom of speech, and economic growth coexist.

Positioning Taiwan as the example of modern Chinese success allows the U.S. to present a powerful counter-narrative to the CCP’s authoritarianism. By highlighting Taiwan’s technological advancements, democratic governance, and robust civil society, we can promote Taiwan as the model for the Chinese-speaking world.

While Taiwan has made efforts to promote its culture and identity through institutions like the Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices (TECO), these efforts have proven insufficient. The limitations of TECO are not only due to its budget constraints but also because of a strategic flaw in its messaging. 

TECO often promotes a sense of “Taiwanness,” emphasizing a distinct Taiwanese identity separate from Chinese heritage. While this may appeal to domestic political interests, particularly those of the DPP, it ultimately undermines Taiwan’s strongest cultural asset: its claim to authentic and modern Chinese identity. By diluting the focus on Taiwan’s inheritance of Chinese culture, TECO misses a key opportunity to present Taiwan as the true custodian of Chinese heritage, a narrative that could strengthen its position globally without provoking Beijing unnecessarily. 

Rather than focusing on creating a distinct “Taiwanness,” Taiwan’s cultural diplomacy should double down on its authentic Chinese identity—preserving the historical and cultural traditions that have been eroded under CCP rule—while showcasing its modern democratic model as the future of Chinese society. This would allow Taiwan to challenge the CCP’s claims to represent Chinese civilization and culture, while still maintaining an identity rooted in historical continuity. 

Therefore, the U.S. must step in to help amplify Taiwan’s message. TECO alone does not have the resources, reach, or the appropriate strategic focus to counter the CCP’s Confucius Institutes and other cultural efforts. Western involvement is crucial in reinforcing Taiwan’s cultural outreach and in correcting the course of TECO’s current strategy, which undercuts the core inheritance that could unite the Taiwanese population and bolster its global standing.

The former President Donald Trump has demonstrated a talent for delivering statements that provoke geopolitical tensions while drawing attention to key strategic issues. A statement endorsing Taiwan’s cultural legitimacy and modernity would likely irritate Beijing and bolster Taiwanese standing.

Trump would know better than anyone how to use such a statement. He should be aware that this is a form of leverage and one that could be very useful as he seeks to shape our relations with China.  

To enhance this strategy outlined above, U.S. policymakers should consider the following initiatives:

• Public Messaging: Aside from a statement by the president, U.S. leadership should emphasize in speeches and international forums that Taiwan embodies both the authentic and modern Chinese identity. This would irk Beijing without providing new provocations for military aggression.

• Cultural Institutions: The U.S. could support or help establish alternatives to Confucius Institutes, promoting Taiwanese culture and history as the true inheritor of Chinese heritage. Taiwan has already laid some groundwork through TECO, but American investment and collaboration could significantly broaden the reach of these efforts.

• Youth Engagement: American soft power efforts should focus on Taiwanese youth, fostering a sense of pride in their heritage and their role as defenders of Chinese democracy. Initiatives could include exchange programs, leadership training, and media campaigns that highlight Taiwan’s democratic success.

The U.S. should continue its commitment to strengthening Taiwan’s military defenses and building an anti-hegemonic coalition. Nevertheless, the key to fostering long-term resilience on the island lies in soft power. Taiwan’s existing soft power initiatives are insufficient on their own to combat the CCP’s expansive influence. By partnering with Taiwan to promote its claim to both authentic Chinese culture and its status as the true modern Chinese society, we can enhance political unity, boost morale, and ultimately improve Taiwan’s military readiness. This soft power approach will create a cohesive national identity that encourages political unity while avoiding direct provocation of the CCP.

Through these efforts, the U.S. can support Taiwan in defending not only its sovereignty but also the broader question of what it means to be Chinese in the 21st century.