Recently there has been an unprecedented volume of talk, some of it serious, to the effect that the US will, and even should, end its responsibility of defending Taiwan.
Foreign Affairs, the influential journal sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, not long ago published an article whose author suggested that Taiwan assume the role of Finland during the Cold War (ie, become a client or protectorate of China). A more recent article said the US should, given the rise of China, dump Taiwan. The author of the latter piece contends this would not whet China’s appetite for more and would resolve a major issue of contention between the US and China.
Foreign Affairs often anticipates changes in US foreign policy. Sometimes it recommends them. In this case, it may be doing both.
There are also signals US President Barack Obama’s administration does not want to continue being Taiwan’s guardian. In 2009, Obama, meeting with Chinese leaders in Beijing, concurred that Taiwan is their “core interest” — meaning something China is willing to fight for (suggesting the US may not).
Obama does not want to go to war with China. The US military is already stretched thin with current fighting. Moreover, he has proposed serious cuts to the military’s budget. Meanwhile, China’s military spending has been growing fast and will likely to continue to do so. Some say spending on an arms race with China would bankrupt the US.
Another factor is that the US is indebted to China to the tune of almost US$2 trillion and needs more of China’s money. This gives China leverage over US policies.
The Obama administration has demurred — some say to avoid angering its banker — on arms sales to Taiwan. US Senator Richard Lugar, a long-time expert on US foreign policy matters, recently expressed serious concern about US arms sales to Taiwan being held up and not being sufficient for Taiwan to maintain a minimum level of deterrence.
It is also a fact that Obama listens to the US Department of State, which doesn’t like Taiwan and would not mind giving it to China; it certainly does not want the US to use military force to protect Taiwan. Obama is hearing less from the military and the intelligence community, who see an advantage in Taiwan remaining separate from China.
There are other hints of a shift in the US’ Taiwan policy. Obama has appointed US Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke as the new ambassador to China. Locke is an expert on economic matters; he has little knowledge of security issues. Meanwhile, a number of Obama’s China experts are leaving the administration, with Japan experts set to fill the void.
Making matters worse for Taiwan, the US Congress — usually a strong supporter of Taiwan — is preoccupied with the US debt, healthcare, several wars and other issues. Moreover, the “Taiwan issue” does not resonate with many new members of the US Congress.
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), passed into law by the US Congress in 1979 to provide Taiwan US economic and security guarantees, was 30 years old two years ago; the US Congress did little to celebrate the occasion. Few members of the US Congress cite the TRA these days.
If the US Congress is not interested in defending Taiwan, the US public is even less so. Americans, as various polls reflect, are not in the mood to see the US military sent to yet another part of the world. Specifically, the US populace does not want American blood shed to protect Taiwan.
Policy wonks and academics might provide some other opinions, but generally they aren’t. They perceive that Taiwan itself is divided about its future. They think they have to choose between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which is in power and allegedly wants to orchestrate union with China, and the Democratic Progressive Party, which might draw the US into war with China to further its own political interests (though neither view has much validity).
Thus, considering the issue from a variety of perspectives, the US seems willing to discontinue its duty to protect Taiwan; in fact, it may be on the verge of doing so.
This is a serious matter. Whether Taiwan is a democracy or not and whether its leaders and its population wish to unify with China or remain separate won’t matter. Without US military support, Taiwan will not have a choice.
John Copper is the Stanley J. Buckman professor of international studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS