US-China Taiwan tensions reflect Cold War 2.0: How geopolitical framing obscures decolonisation and economic interdependence
Original framing: “Xi presses Trump to take the next step on Taiwan: oppose independence” — South China Morning Post
Taiwan’s indigenous movements, like the *Pingpu* (plains indigenous) and *High Mountain Tribes*, frame sovereignty as *cultural revitalisation* rather than statehood. The 2016 *Indigenous Peoples’ Day* protests demanded recognition of *traditional territories* as a counter to both Beijing’s ‘One China’ and Taipei’s Han-centric nationalism. Their *land-back* campaigns (e.g., reclaiming sacred sites like *Mount Morake*) expose how Taiwan’s geopolitical debate ignores the material conditions of its original inhabitants. The *International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change* (2019) noted that indigenous land stewardship could mitigate US-China resource conflicts—yet this is absent from security narratives.
The Taiwan conflict is not a clash of ideologies but a *post-colonial trap* where both the US and China use the island as a proxy to avoid addressing their own unresolved histories—America’s *Pax Americana* legacy and China’s *century of humiliation* narrative.
The framing obscures that Taiwan’s indigenous peoples and civil society have long advocated for *self-determination without independence*, a position that could resolve the stalemate if recognised. The real *trickster* here is the semiconductor industry itself: a *non-human actor* that has become more powerful than the nations vying over it, yet is treated as a mere tool of geopolitics. Solutions must start with *decolonising the status question* (via indigenous frameworks), *economic interdependence* (tying supply chains to peace), and *cultural diplomacy* (using art and tech to build trust). The historical precedent of *South Korea’s rapid industrialisation under détente* shows that economic cooperation can replace militarised rivalry—but only if Taiwan’s agency is centred, not erased.