“Taiwan should not be so defenseless that it feels it has to do everything that China says … China cannot be so overwhelming that it can bully Taiwan.”
These words, uttered by US National Intelligence Director Admiral Dennis Blair at a US Senate committee hearing on Thursday, are intriguing.
This is partly because of Blair’s cautiousness at the expense of coherence: There cannot be degrees of defenselessness, nor degrees of overwhelming power.
But by implying that Taiwan is at risk of defenselessness and that China seeks unmatchable power in the region, Blair — and his hard-nosed intelligence apparatus — represents the “bad cop” of US President Barack Obama’s fledgling China policy against the “good cop” of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the traditionally more congenial State Department.
Blair’s immediate support for closing the growing gap in cross-strait military capability and his identification of Chinese military strategy as an ongoing and unequivocal “threat” to Taiwan is a very welcome tonic after years of obfuscation and scapegoating under former president George W. Bush.
Blair’s statement can only irritate China, though it is likely that Beijing will hold its collective tongue until its officials meet Clinton on Chinese soil next week.
Blair’s comments also offer a degree of relief to the Taiwanese military and opposition politicians who fear that cross-strait detente would jeopardize military ties with the US and hurt future arms sales.
The perception that a Taiwanese government leaning toward Beijing would compromise military secrets and eventually hand weapons to the Chinese military seems to have weakened, at least for the moment.
The development also represents a mixed bag for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
On the one hand, with the US government sketching a rough line in the sand, Ma will find the going slightly more difficult as China demands further pragmatic evidence that his government can stay on its unificationist track.
On the other hand, Ma can use this renewed expression of support and possible commitment to more arms sales from the US as a domestic weapon against the Democratic Progressive Party, arguing that the Ma government best serves the defense interests of all Taiwanese.
Some people in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — those who negotiate with China, in particular — will be greatly irritated at Blair’s unequivocal assessment of Chinese intentions and capabilities.
But for most, Washington’s regrouping on cross-strait military matters will provide a boost in confidence.
The “status quo” that so many people place faith in was looking quite ragged there for a while. Now, with election season over and Washington looking to fortify policy over the next four years, this strange slogan has had some life breathed into it at a time of considerable symbolic value.
That support for Taiwan has been expressed by the head of the US intelligence apparatus rather than by a president speaking off the cuff and apparently without institutional backup — as Bush did in his first term — bodes well for Taiwan’s immediate future.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS