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.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS