At 2:46pm on March 11, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurred off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture in northeastern Japan, setting off a tsunami as high as 10m. About 24 hours later, the first of a series of explosions shook overheated reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. The US hurriedly dispatched a group of 14 vessels, including two aircraft carriers, to assist the Japanese Self-Defense Forces in disaster relief work.
On the morning of March 18, Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) had asked Taiwan to allow dependents of US civilian and military officials stationed in Japan to transit via Taiwan or to be temporarily accommodated here. This was followed by a similar request from Australia.
These moves attracted much media attention in Taiwan. A commentator on a political chat show claimed that 40 of the US personnel evacuated to Taiwan were members of the US Navy Marine Corps, and that the AIT was looking for as many as 900 hotel rooms, because rather than evacuating US citizens to Taiwan, it was transferring US intelligence gathering facilities, using Taiwan as a backup location.
According to some reporters, the US did not shift its operations to Shanghai because it sees Taiwan as a “provisional ally.” However, on the basis of my own observations and analysis, that is not the case.
Although political talk shows have made a big deal out of the story, other media have been relatively quiet, so there is really no reason to try and manipulate the story for political purposes. Besides, the US could use more definitive means like military airplanes and ships to evacuate its citizens to Okinawa, Guam, Hawaii or the continental US.
Another point to note is that the US has chartered civil airliners to evacuate its citizens. The first China Airlines 747 charter flight arrived in Taiwan from Japan early in the morning of March 18, carrying 96 Americans and their dependents. That military aircraft were not used indicates concern that such a move would be too sensitive with regard to cross-strait relations. As to the claim that 40 of those evacuated are members of the US Marine Corps, the veracity of that report is far from clear.
What kind of work do these people do — administrative, security or military? Did they arrive wearing civilian clothes or military uniforms? If the latter, it would make them very easy to spot. Even if there really are Marines Corps members among the evacuees, the fact that nobody has been able to identify them shows that the US is adopting an extremely low profile.
This operation has been qualitatively different to what happened after Typhoon Morakot, when the US sent ships and aircraft to help Taiwan’s relief efforts. The US is probably acting out of overall concern, choosing a suitable place for US dependents to transit on their way home, while government personnel normally stationed in Japan are staying in Taiwan for a short time, awaiting instructions depending on what happens in Japan.
It is not out of the question that the US might take this opportunity, under the cover of humanitarian assistance, to test the waters regarding sensitive areas in US-China-Taiwan trilateral relations. If the US and Taiwan continue to handle things in a low-key manner, China is unlikely to react. Beijing is well aware that any reaction it might make could be picked up on and played up by the Democratic Progressive Party. Using military means to provide humanitarian assistance or conduct humanitarian interventions is a two-edged sword; if one is not careful it can lead to political disputes. The US can hardly be unaware of that.
Wang Jyh-perng is an associate research fellow at the Association for Managing Defense and Strategies.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath