Though doubtless unnerving for Taiwanese, China’s handling of cross-strait relations has a long pedigree. Great sea powers view strategically located islands as platforms to extend their reach into faraway theaters. Empires burnish their prestige by acquiring outposts offshore — and islands commonly hold intrinsic economic value.
As all these factors are at work in the Taiwan Strait, it comes as little surprise that Beijing has deployed every tool in its diplomatic toolkit to consolidate its influence over Taipei. That includes trade and commerce.
While coercive means like ballistic missiles garner the most headlines in the cross-strait imbroglio, the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) that will soon be under negotiation represents another part of a concerted Chinese strategy toward Taiwan. Chinese leaders believe they can amplify their bargaining leverage by persuading Taiwanese to pin their economic future on access to China’s vast marketplace. Ultimately, Beijing can coax Taipei into accepting Chinese rule without resorting to arms.
This is sound strategy. US diplomatic history attests to it.
Indeed, US history supplies several models for thinking about relations between islands and great nations. Consider the founding of the US. Physics metaphors abounded in early US political thought. In his 1775 pamphlet Common Sense, for example, Thomas Paine ridiculed the thought that an island nation like Great Britain could forever rule a continent like North America. To do so, he appealed to Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity.
Paine said “small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care.”
However, he deemed it “very absurd” to suppose that a continent could be “perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet.”
An ocean separated Britain from the US, limiting the mother country’s gravitational pull. In short, British rule inverted “the common order of nature.”
Similar thinking applied to Cuba. In 1824, US secretary of state John Quincy Adams said the island was a “natural appendage” of the US. Like Paine, Adams invoked Newton: “If an apple, severed by the tempest from its native tree, cannot but choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain and incapable of self-support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which, by the same law of nature, cannot cast her off from its bosom.”
Cuba had matchless strategic value by virtue of its size, its abundance of harbors and its position astride key Caribbean sea lanes. Still, domestic politics intervened when the US Congress approved military action against Spain, only to foreswear annexation. Southern planters opposed annexation, lobbying tirelessly to prevent competition from Cuban imports like sugar and tobacco. Despite Adams’ prophecy, the US freed the island after expelling the Spanish colonial regime in 1898. Strategic logic sometimes yields to other imperatives.
Then there’s Hawaii. Navalists like Alfred Thayer Mahan prized the archipelago for strategic reasons, mainly to prevent rival navies from acquiring strongholds off the US west coast and to provide the US Navy an advance base in the Pacific.
The cases offer mixed guidance for Taipei. If Newtonian logic governs cross-strait affairs, a glance at the map implies that Taiwan will be drawn into China’s orbit. But Taiwan is better equipped than 19th-century Cuba, Hawaii or the Philippines to defy political gravity. The challenge before Taipei is to turn cross-strait economic intercourse to its advantage.
Physics is not destiny. Neither is economics.
James Holmes is an associate professor at the US Naval War College.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers