When Democracy Meets Imperial Impulse

William Lai stood before reporters in Taipei last week, carefully choosing his words about the new US administration. His measured tone carried the weight of 23 million Taiwanese citizens whose security depends on American goodwill—goodwill that now flows from a leader whose foreign policy appears driven more by personal whim than strategic doctrine.

The comparison to Caligula might seem hyperbolic, but it captures something essential about the current moment in US-Taiwan relations. When policy becomes personality, and personality becomes unpredictable, even America's closest partners find themselves walking on diplomatic eggshells.

The New Rules of Engagement

Trump's approach to international relations has always been transactional, but his second term reveals something more concerning for Taiwan: the absence of coherent strategic thinking. Where previous administrations built policy frameworks around containment, engagement, or strategic competition, Trump operates on instinct and immediate gratification.

This creates an unprecedented challenge for Taiwan's leadership. Traditional diplomatic playbooks assume rational actors pursuing consistent national interests. But what happens when the world's most powerful democracy is led by someone who views international relations through the lens of personal loyalty and immediate gain?

The "No Kings" protests spreading across American cities reflect a deeper anxiety about democratic institutions under strain. For Taiwan—a vibrant democracy itself—watching America's democratic norms bend raises uncomfortable questions about the reliability of democratic partnerships.

The Kowtow Calculation

Taiwan's predicament illustrates a broader challenge facing middle powers in today's international system. Caught between China's rising assertiveness and America's erratic leadership, Taiwan must navigate what scholars call the "strategic autonomy paradox"—the need to maintain independence while depending on a patron whose behavior has become increasingly unpredictable.

Lai's careful diplomatic language reflects this reality. Every statement must be calibrated not just for Beijing's reaction, but for Washington's mercurial moods. When your security guarantor operates on impulse rather than strategy, even routine diplomatic communications become high-stakes performances.

This dynamic extends beyond Taiwan. From Seoul to Warsaw, democratic allies are grappling with how to maintain partnerships with an America that seems to have abandoned the very principles of consistent, rules-based governance that made it an attractive partner in the first place.

The Imperial Temptation

The historical parallel to Roman emperors isn't just rhetorical flourish—it reveals something fundamental about power without institutional constraints. Caligula famously made his horse a consul, not because it served Roman interests, but because he could. When power becomes divorced from accountability, policy becomes indistinguishable from personal preference.

For Taiwan, this creates a paradox within a paradox. The island's security depends on American power, but America's democratic character was what made that dependence palatable. If America begins to resemble the authoritarian systems it claims to oppose, what does that mean for the moral foundation of the democratic alliance?

The question isn't whether Taiwan should maintain its relationship with the United States—it has little choice—but how it can preserve its own democratic values while accommodating an increasingly imperial patron.

Beyond Binary Choices

Taiwan's challenge reflects a broader crisis in the international system. The Cold War offered clear ideological choices between democratic and communist blocs. Today's world presents more complex trade-offs between security and autonomy, between principle and pragmatism.

China offers its own version of this calculation: economic integration in exchange for political deference. Russia presents raw power politics. The European Union promotes multilateral cooperation but lacks military credibility. Each option requires different compromises of Taiwan's sovereignty and values.

The emergence of what some analysts call "competitive authoritarianism" in established democracies complicates these calculations further. When democratic leaders adopt authoritarian methods, the ideological clarity that once guided foreign policy decisions begins to blur.