Over the past few days people have been expressing their discontent over recent comments by the US State Department and Congress regarding the US' commitment to defend Taiwan if China were ever to attack. While these letters did contain insightful thoughts on Taiwan's political arena and how the US' comments might adversely affect the stalled arms-purchase bill, there is still one more key point that needs to be discussed further: US domestic politics. While it is certain that many comments coming out of Washington were in fact directed at pressuring Taiwan's legislature, others were just statements of fact.
Obviously, just like in most democratic countries, US policy is determined, at least in part, by political will. As long as the public supports it, a government can pretty much do anything it likes. The years since Sept. 11 have proven this, with the military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and the sweeping changes in domestic law created by the Patriot Act. Despite the fact that many people, both in the US and abroad, question the validity and costs of such measures, the public has generally supported the Bush administration, giving it the power to continue with its policies.
While it is true that many US companies will benefit greatly from the sale of arms to Taiwan, that is not what concerns the public most. What concerns Americans most is the safety and well-being of their nation's people. If the US ever had to defend Taiwan in a military conflict, the government would have to be able to explain its decision to the American public.
To see proof of this, all you have to do is look at any US newspaper. Despite the fact the Iraq conflict started a year and a half ago, the deaths of US servicemen killed there still often makes front page news.
So if once again the US were called on to send its sons and daughters into combat, the government would have to be able to explain why. The answer would be that Taiwan is an imperfect though thriving democracy being attacked by a country known for stifling freedom and regularly violating the most basic of human rights.
However, those in Washington speaking out for Taiwan would be hard pressed to explain why Taiwan was not better prepared militarily, especially when China has openly expressed its hostile intent for well over 50 years.
There is a fair chance that, as Taiwan became front-page news, Americans would see that Taiwan was given the chance to defend itself, yet passed it up for several years. Even more compelling would be the fact that the legislative coalition opposing the arms procurement was still chosen by over half of Taiwan's voting public in elections held right in the middle of the impasse. Although the president could quickly commit troops to defend Taiwan, he would risk his political future if he could not convince the American people that such intervention was wanted by the majority of the people in Taiwan. In other words, the US would simply not have the political will to risk the lives of its people for a nation that has refused to defend itself.
The comments made by the US government have come from both a bipartisan Congress and from administration officials, who tend to not develop their policy in concert. Therefore it should not be assumed that US congress members and administration officials were presenting a collective shift in US policy toward Taiwan. They were simply stating a fact that the people of Taiwan should be aware of, while covering their own political careers in case a conflict ever did break out.
While, just like any sovereign nation, Taiwan has the right to negate foreign influence on its domestic affairs, it should respect Washington's desire for Taiwan to be prepared for conflict before it sends its own sons and daughters into the Taiwan Strait.
Daniel Mojahedi
United States
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