Recent statements by US Senator Dianne Feinstein about Taiwan and its relations with China caused quite a stir.
The statement that attracted most attention was a remark she made during a Senate hearing with US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on June 16, indicating that during a recent trip to China, leaders in Beijing had offered to “redeploy back” some of their military forces, including missiles, opposite Taiwan, in return for Washington not selling arms to Taipei.
The statement later turned out to be a dud. An aide explained that she was referring to an offer that was made in the past and was no longer on the table, while the next day US Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, when asked about the statement, denied that China had made any specific proposals along the lines indicated by Feinstein.
However, another statement by Feinstein actually gives more reason for concern. In a June 6 interview with the Wall Street Journal, she said of the sale of US$6.4 billion worth of arms to Taiwan, announced by the administration of US President Barack Obama in January: “I believe that’s a mistake on our part.”
It is difficult to understand why Feinstein feels that the arms sale is a mistake on the part of the US. It is a clear response to China’s continuing military buildup across the Taiwan Strait, including the ongoing deployment of missiles aimed at Taiwan. China has indicated in no uncertain terms that this buildup is designed to coerce Taiwan into reunification.
If there is a “mistake,” it is on China’s part: The leaders in Beijing are apparently underestimating and misjudging US resolve to help defend Taiwan. This is not only the political resolve enunciated by successive US administrations, but is also enshrined in US law — the Taiwan Relations Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1979.
Perhaps Feinstein feels that the US should not be engaged in an “arms race” across the Taiwan Strait or that it should work toward “demilitarization” in the area. However, history shows that unilateral reductions in arms and defense capability actually invite aggression. It takes two to tango, and China would have to show a clear willingness to reduce its arms buildup and missile arsenal arrayed against Taiwan for demilitarization to work.
It is a useful exercise to remind ourselves of other past examples in which an ill considered idea led to aggression and even war. World War II was precipitated when France, Britain and the US looked the other way as Nazi Germany laid claim to neighboring Sudetenland and used it as an excuse to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland.
In 1950, the Korean War — a war that I fought in — came about after (though not necessarily directly because of) former US secretary of state Dean Acheson left South Korea out of his “Aleutians speech” detailing the US defense perimeter in the Western Pacific. In 1991, a statement by a US official to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein that “Kuwait is not important to the United States” is said to have contributed to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
The message should be clear: If the US want a peaceful resolution of cross-strait conflict, it needs to stand by Taiwan, not only militarily, but also politically and economically. At the same time, the US needs to impress on China in no uncertain terms that its continuing military buildup is wrongheaded and a mistake on Beijing’s part.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS