When asked during a television interview what he thought the "landmines" were in terms of US-China relations, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage replied, "Taiwan," adding that, "Taiwan is probably the biggest landmine." So, will the US actually come to the defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack by China? To this, Armitage's answer was that the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA,
It is difficult to find fault in what he actually said here, but what is clear from all this is first that the US is concerned about the rise of China; secondly, that a degree of conflict has arisen between the US and China; and third, that the issue of a potential "landmine" exploding is a crucial point.
In other words, the US is well aware of the threat posed by the rise of China, otherwise there would be no tension between them. At most, Taiwan is the "biggest" possible cause of trouble flaring.
As a result, the US' true focus is not the Taiwan question but the threat of China, and Taiwan is merely a landmine placed between the two giants. It is only when the situation is looked at in this light that one can understand the US standpoint on the Taiwan question, the TRA and US-China-Taiwan relations.
The TRA was passed in both houses of the US Congress, and declares that "peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States," and that to have "boycotts and embargoes" against Taiwan are "a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area," and are therefore "of grave concern to the United States."
Therefore, if the US comes to the defense of Taiwan, it will be doing so out of consideration of its own national interest.
Naturally, America has the choice of not defending Taiwan, should it relinquish its interests in the West Pacific region. To put it more clearly, if the US sells the "Taiwan landmine" down the river, and scraps the TRA, they will be losing the Western Pacific Region as a sphere of influence. This will be tantamount to making the same errors they committed 50 years ago, and creating a monster that they cannot control.
In May 1946, Chiang Kai-shek's (
Here, he could have struck a decisive blow against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but called a ceasefire under pressure from US General George Marshall.
This gave the communists time to rest and regroup, and three years later communist China became a reality.
With a little assistance from China, the Soviet Union was able to extend into Asia, in addition to the influence it had in Europe and China itself. Also, Kim Il-sung (
Even today North Korea presents a major challenge to the US: they should have learned their lesson the first time around. America's mistakes of half a century ago have created the crisis that exists between China and Taiwan. Will the US make a similar mistake again? America has already lost friends in Europe -- is the same thing going to happen in Asia as well? This is not just something for the White House to think about: Congress must take note, too.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly Magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS