Unsurprisingly, the comments made by US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage that Taiwan was "probably the biggest landmine" in US-China relations as well as "the US is not required to defend Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act" stirred up domestic finger-pointing in Taipei.
When the US sneezes, Taiwan catches a cold. We have seen this pattern repeated over the past year. Partisan calculations aside, can Taiwan's leaders -- from both camps -- ?learn lessons and re-examine their strategy toward the new US-Taiwan-China relationship?
The Armitage quote was made Dec. 10 -- on the eve of Taiwan's legislative elections. The PBS network chose to run the interview more than ten days after the pan-blue camp secured a majority. Washington must have been relieved that the pro-new-constitution, pro-name-rectification pan-green forces failed to win the campaign. There is no need for Washington to intentionally sabotage the Chen Shui-bian (
Armitage was simply explaining an old nuance in the TRA and the Three Communiques, and not a new policy change. But no one can deny the incremental adjustment in the US tendency to replace its old strategy of "ambiguity" with a clearer identification of what can and cannot be done.
Washington's move to draw a clear "red line" has been closely associated with a growing misperception of Taiwan's status and a lack of trust in Chen's next step regarding constitutional reforms and name change.
Taipei's lack of determination to strengthen its self-defense capability in the face of a potential military crisis originates from China's reckless and irrational miscalculation.
The US conviction is that all these factors would drag it into an unnecessary military conflict with China, which the Bush administration does not want and would be unable to solve.
Therefore, Armitage's comments displayed a unified Bush administration attitude to send clear messages to Chen's government, the pan-blue camp and Beijing.
Washington's warning to Chen is simply "don't take the US for granted." There is indeed a presumption in Taiwan -- advocated mostly by Taiwan's independence proponents -- that Taiwan can be provocative to China, and the US will bail Taiwan out.
Despite the differences between Chen and former President Lee Teng-hui (
Such a notion that "the US will come to our aid anyway" has led to even more worrisome behavior by the pan-blue force's mindless and irrational boycott of the 6-million dollar purchase of eight diesel submarines, six Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile defense batteries and 12 P-3C maritime patrol aircraft.
In keeping with the TRA, the US should provide Taiwan with weapons sufficient for its defense to deter military action, but there is a difference between "deter" and "defend." Without showing any will to defend itself, how can Taiwan count only on the US' assistance?
To Beijing, it is not a good time to take advantage of US policy maker's criticisms of Taiwan's leader, either. The alleged move to enact the so-called "anti-secession law" is a straight manifestation of unilaterally changing the status quo of Taiwan Strait.
As one of the actors, China should not portray itself as both arbitrator and law-enforcer. The move is not conducive to a peaceful and stable cross-strait dialogue.
Liu Kuan-teh is Taipei-based political commentator.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS