Editor's note: Imran Khalid, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In the complex geometry of East Asian geopolitics, few phenomena are as persistent – or as perilous – as the use of fear to drive domestic policy. The recent remarks by Taiwan's leader, Lai Ching-te, coupled with a highly publicized push by U.S. lawmakers, suggest a coordinated effort to amplify a "mainland threat" narrative. While framed as a quest for security, this strategy risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of instability that benefits narrow political interests at the expense of regional peace.

During a recent interview with AFP on February 12, Lai painted a somber picture of the future. He argued that if the Chinese mainland were to "seize" Taiwan, the move would merely be a prelude to further expansionism against Japan and the Philippines. This "domino theory" rhetoric is not new, but its timing is significant. Lai is currently locked in a domestic political stalemate, with an opposition-controlled legislature repeatedly blocking his administration's massive $40 billion special defense budget. By elevating the perceived threat to an existential level, he is clearly attempting to bypass legislative scrutiny and foster a sense of urgency that might compel his domestic rivals to yield.

However, the consequences of such rhetoric extend far beyond the budget floor of Taiwan's legislative body. When leadership in Taipei frames every cross-Strait issue through the lens of inevitable conflict, it narrows the space for the very "healthy and orderly exchanges" that Lai himself claimed to seek during a press conference following a high-level security meeting. This narrative serves a specific purpose: It provides the ideological groundwork for a policy of seeking ever-greater external military support, particularly from the United States.

This external dimension was highlighted on February 12, when more than 30 U.S. lawmakers sent a letter to Han Kuo-yu, the speaker of Taiwan's legislative body. The letter expressed "serious concerns" over the potential underfunding of Taiwan's defense budget and urged a "clear signal" of resolve. From a distance, this might appear to be routine allying management. But viewed from Beijing, these actions are perceived quite differently.

For the central government, the sight of foreign legislators pressuring a local administration to increase military spending is a provocative signal. It suggests a deepening of military ties that edges closer to the "red lines" Beijing has long established. When U.S. politicians deepen military cooperation, they provide "Taiwan independence" forces with a false sense of security, thereby encouraging a drift away from the status quo. This, in turn, necessitates a response from the Chinese mainland to demonstrate its resolve, leading to a classic security dilemma: Actions taken by one side to enhance its security are perceived as threats by the other, prompting a counteraction that leaves both less secure.

The real danger here is the erosion of the "middle ground." The opposition in Taiwan has signaled a preference for more measured spending and a resumption of dialogue, as evidenced by the recent forum on February 3 between think tanks affiliated with the Communist Party of China and the Chinese Kuomintang. These are the types of pragmatic channels that historically lowered the temperature across the strait. Yet, by characterizing any hesitation to spend billions on advanced weaponry as a lack of "will," the current administration and its backers in Washington are effectively marginalizing the voices of de-escalation.

Furthermore, the "threat narrative" often obscures the region's economic and social realities. The cross-Strait relationship is not merely a military standoff; it is one of the most robust economic partnerships in the world. In 2024, trade between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan reached around $293 billion. When rhetoric shifts so heavily toward military preparation, it risks spooking the very markets and investors that provide the island with its actual resilience. A society permanently on a war footing is rarely prosperous or stable.

If the goal is truly peace and stability, the path forward must involve less signaling of "determination" through arms races and more commitment to the difficult work of political management. The current trajectory, defined by amplified alarms and foreign intervention in local budgetary matters, only serves to heighten tensions.

Leadership requires the courage to resist the easy pull of fear-based politics. For Taipei, this means engaging with the Chinese mainland in a way that acknowledges historical realities rather than relying on an ever-expanding defense budget as a panacea. For Washington, it means recognizing that stability is best served by upholding the one-China principle and encouraging dialogue, rather than acting as a lobbyist for defense contractors.

As the situation stands, the "military threat" narrative is a tool that may help pass a budget or win a news cycle, but its long-term cost is the very peace it claims to protect. True security in the Taiwan Strait will not be found in the silos of a new missile system, but in the restoration of trust and the cooling of the rhetoric that currently defines this vital waterway.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)