In the upcoming issue of Foreign Affairs, George Washington University professor Charles Glaser makes the case for the US avoiding conflict with a rising China by backing away from its commitments to Taiwan. In his view, this would remove “the most obvious and contentious flashpoint” and smooth the way for better relations in the decades to come.
To be honest, never in my long diplomatic life have I run into a more shortsighted, uninformed and fallacious set of arguments as can be found in Glaser’s essay. Foreign Affairs does itself and its readers a disservice by publishing such a flawed article.
For one, Glaser cannot get his facts straight.
In the section dealing with the Taiwan issue, he writes: “Although it lost control of Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War, more than six decades ago, China still considers Taiwan part of its homeland.”
At what time did the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have control of Taiwan? Any elementary school child in Taiwan can tell us that Taiwan was a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945, and then it came under the control of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), on behalf of the Allied Forces. The PRC, which came into existence in 1949, never had any control of Taiwan.
A second important issue is whether such appeasement would increase China’s appetite, making Beijing even more demanding. Glaser dismisses such criticism, but in doing so he shows his failure to understand the Chinese psyche: Just like the old dynasties of yesteryear, the Chinese see themselves as the Middle Kingdom. The “rise of China” is a resurrection of the idea that China is the center of civilization and all outside powers should be tributaries. China’s goals are therefore not “limited,” as Glaser mistakenly believes. It would not be “content” with control over Taiwan.
This brings me to my third point. Glaser thinks that if Taiwan is removed as an irritant in US relations with China, the other differences could be worked out. This is utterly wrong. China sees itself as the new superpower, which is presenting the world with an alternative developmental model — strong economic growth paired with continued tight political control by the central regime. Chinese officials are actively marketing this model. Just look at their support for regimes in Myanmar, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Do we want that model to prevail, or a system to be based on freedom and democracy?
A fourth element that Glaser totally overlooks in his theoretical world of various shades of realism is the fact that over the past decades, Taiwan has developed a set of shared values, which are very similar to the ones the US holds dear. Taiwanese have worked hard for their democracy and believe in a future that is free and democratic — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the US backs away from its commitment to Taiwan, the US backs away from its basic values. That would be a signal not taken lightly in East Asia.
The case thus needs to be made that Taiwan is an important element in the US’ strategy to broaden and strengthen freedom and democracy in East Asia. Its transition to democracy only 20 some years ago is a prime example of how people in the world are waking up to the fact that they have a choice. In the Middle East, several countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are going through that tumultuous process right now.
Abandoning a country and a people who have achieved freedom and democracy through their own hard work would be a betrayal of everything the US stands for as a nation.
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.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS