Commentaries 評論

台灣處境的兩種敘事：從「失去川普」到「沒有人失去台灣」

郭銘傑

2025. 9. 23 

近年來，台灣在國際關係中的能見度大幅提升，特別是在中美競爭加劇與地緣戰略風險升高的背景下。針對台灣的前景與挑戰，不同分析呈現了兩種截然不同的敘事風格：一種是悲觀的「失去川普」論述，另一種則是相對樂觀的「台灣仍穩定安全」觀點。前者以 Christian Whiton 的〈How Taiwan Lost Trump〉為代表，後者則由 Philip H. Gordon 與 Ryan Hass 的〈Nobody Lost Taiwan: The Island Remains Secure and Stable—for Now〉所體現。兩者對比，既反映了不同的政策關注點，也揭示了台灣處境的多重維度。

Whiton 的文章核心在於指出台灣因外交策略與形象操作失誤，逐漸失去川普政府的支持。他認為，賴清德政府未能與美國保守派，特別是「MAGA」政治群體建立良好互動，導致過境安排受阻、美台貿易協議停滯，甚至軍售計畫受影響。這種論述將台灣描繪為在外交上「錯失良機」的行為者，並暗示若無法及時調整，台灣可能失去美國的重要支持。換言之，Whiton 的關注點在於美國內部政治力量的分化，認為台灣若忽視共和黨右派的影響，便會陷入戰略孤立。

與此形成鮮明對比的是，Gordon 與 Hass 的文章則主張外界對台灣的憂慮被誇大。他們承認中國正在進行大規模軍事擴張，並在台海製造「新常態」，包括實彈演習、飛彈試射與跨越中線行動，同時也積極透過宣傳與滲透影響台灣社會。然而，作者強調台灣並非被動受害者，而是已經採取了「刺蝟戰略」，包括推動不對稱防禦、強化全民防衛、引進現代化武器，並與美國及其他夥伴展開軍備合作。此外，台灣的民意基礎相對穩固，超過九成民眾認同「台灣人」身分，統一支持率極低，三大政黨在核心立場上高度一致，政治實際上比表面爭吵更穩定。最關鍵的是，台灣在半導體產業上的壟斷地位使其成為全球經濟不可或缺的一環，這保證了美國與其他國家持續有強烈理由維護台灣安全。

若從分析框架來看，Whiton 的論述屬於「內政—外交視角」，其重點在於台灣如何因應美國內部政治變化。他提醒，外交不只是戰略與政策，還涉及文化、形象與政治感知，若台灣不能調整，就可能在國際政治中失去槓桿。相對地，Gordon 與 Hass 的觀點則偏向「結構—戰略視角」，強調台灣在軍事改革與產業優勢上已具備長期韌性，即使美國支持出現波動，台灣仍有能力自我強化並維持穩定。

兩種敘事各有價值，但也都有侷限。Whiton 的觀點提醒台灣必須理解並回應美國內部的政治分化，這對維繫雙邊關係確實重要。然而，他的分析過於聚焦於「川普因素」，傾向把外交困境歸因於台灣政府的操作失誤，忽視了中美大國博弈與結構性矛盾才是美台互動的根本背景。另一方面，Gordon 與 Hass 的「穩定論」提供了一種審慎樂觀的觀點，能平衡過度危言聳聽的「台灣危機論」。但他們對北京可能的戰略冒險與美國政治變動的不確定性，則顯得過於保守甚至低估。

整體而言，這兩篇文章呈現了關於台灣前景的兩種互補思路：Whiton 的悲觀敘事提醒台灣在外交操作上須謹慎處理與美國不同派系的互動，以免失去關鍵支持；Gordon 與 Hass 的審慎樂觀則強調台灣具備結構性優勢與能動性，即便面臨挑戰仍有能力穩定發展。對台灣而言，最重要的是結合兩者觀點：一方面理解美國政治的複雜性，避免外交單一化；另一方面持續深化國防改革與經濟實力，確保在結構上有足夠籌碼。唯有如此，台灣才能在動盪的國際局勢中，不僅維持安全，更能持續繁榮。

Two Narratives of Taiwan’s Situation: From “Losing Trump” to “Nobody Lost Taiwan”

Jason Kuo 

September 23, 2025

In recent years, Taiwan’s visibility in international relations has grown significantly, particularly against the backdrop of intensifying U.S.–China rivalry and rising geopolitical risks. Regarding Taiwan’s prospects and challenges, two contrasting narratives have emerged: a pessimistic “Losing Trump” discourse and a relatively optimistic “Taiwan Remains Secure and Stable” perspective. The former is exemplified by Christian Whiton’s How Taiwan Lost Trump, while the latter is articulated in Philip H. Gordon and Ryan Hass’s Nobody Lost Taiwan: The Island Remains Secure and Stable—for Now. The juxtaposition of these views reflects not only different policy concerns but also the multiple dimensions of Taiwan’s circumstances.

Whiton’s article centers on the claim that Taiwan has gradually lost the Trump administration’s support due to diplomatic missteps and poor image management. He argues that the Lai Ching-te administration has failed to build constructive engagement with American conservatives, particularly the “MAGA” political camp, resulting in blocked transit arrangements, stalled U.S.–Taiwan trade negotiations, and even setbacks in arms sales. This narrative portrays Taiwan as a diplomatic actor that has “missed critical opportunities,” suggesting that without timely adjustment, Taiwan risks losing vital American backing. In other words, Whiton emphasizes the divisions within U.S. domestic politics, warning that Taiwan will face strategic isolation if it disregards the influence of the Republican right.

By contrast, Gordon and Hass contend that outside anxieties about Taiwan have been overstated. They acknowledge that China is undertaking a massive military buildup and has created a “new normal” in the Taiwan Strait, including live-fire exercises, missile tests, and frequent crossings of the median line, while simultaneously using propaganda and infiltration to shape Taiwanese society. Yet they stress that Taiwan is not a passive victim. Rather, it has already adopted a “porcupine strategy,” pursuing asymmetric defense, strengthening civil defense, acquiring modernized weaponry, and enhancing security cooperation with the United States and other partners. Moreover, Taiwan’s public opinion foundation remains robust: over 90 percent of the population identifies as Taiwanese, support for unification is extremely low, and the three major political parties share strong consensus on core positions—making politics more stable than surface disputes suggest. Most crucially, Taiwan’s dominance in the semiconductor industry makes it indispensable to the global economy, ensuring that the United States and other nations have compelling reasons to uphold Taiwan’s security.

Analytically, Whiton’s argument represents a “domestic politics–foreign policy” lens, focusing on how Taiwan responds to shifts within U.S. internal politics. He reminds us that diplomacy is not only about strategy and policy but also about culture, image, and political perception; failure to adjust could erode Taiwan’s leverage in world affairs. Conversely, Gordon and Hass adopt a “structural–strategic” lens, highlighting Taiwan’s resilience derived from military reform and industrial advantages. From this vantage, even if U.S. support fluctuates, Taiwan retains the capacity to strengthen itself and maintain stability.

Both narratives offer value but also carry limitations. Whiton rightly warns that Taiwan must recognize and respond to America’s political polarization—an essential task for sustaining bilateral relations. Yet his analysis overemphasizes the “Trump factor,” attributing diplomatic dilemmas too heavily to Taiwan’s operational shortcomings while overlooking the structural reality of great-power rivalry as the fundamental context of U.S.–Taiwan interactions. On the other hand, Gordon and Hass’s “stability thesis” provides a cautiously optimistic counterweight to alarmist “Taiwan crisis” narratives. Still, their perspective arguably underestimates Beijing’s potential for strategic adventurism and the uncertainties of U.S. political dynamics.

Taken together, these two essays reveal complementary ways of understanding Taiwan’s future. Whiton’s pessimistic account reminds Taiwan to handle interactions with different U.S. factions carefully to avoid losing critical support, while Gordon and Hass’s cautious optimism underscores Taiwan’s structural strengths and agency to remain stable despite challenges. For Taiwan, the key lies in combining both insights: appreciating the complexity of U.S. politics to avoid diplomatic overreliance on any single channel, while continuing to deepen defense reforms and economic competitiveness to ensure structural leverage. Only by doing both can Taiwan not only preserve its security but also sustain prosperity in an unsettled international order.