It is difficult to understand how one person can put so many misconceptions and distortions into one essay as John Copper did (“Could US policy abandon Taiwan?” May 11, page 8).
Copper has been around for some time, but from his vantage point in Memphis, Tennessee, he does not have the foggiest idea of how Washington works and what people in the US capital think. In a highly irresponsible manner he weaves a tale of misconstructions and outright falsehoods.
For example, he wrote that in 2009, during a meeting with Chinese leaders in Beijing, US President Barack Obama concurred that Taiwan is in China’s “core interest.”
Beijing’s leaders may want us to believe that, but the Obama administration specifically emphasized after the meeting that it did not “concur” on that point.
It is also a falsehood to state that the US Department of State “doesn’t like Taiwan and would not mind giving it to China.”
The US State Department is a professional organization run by people skilled in diplomacy and is not given to primitive knee-jerk reactions, as ascribed to it by Copper.
Then Copper turns his wild-eyed “analysis” to the US Congress and asserts that it is preoccupied elsewhere and that the “Taiwan issue” does not resonate with new congressional members.
Yes, the US Congress is presently quite busy with budget issues and all that, but both the unofficial representation of the Taiwanese government and the Taiwanese-American community ensure that it remains abreast of developments so that when the time comes, Congress will be on the right side of history.
One also has to wonder how many new members of the US Congress Copper has communicated with. Or is this yet another one of his wild assumptions? Just citing the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is not a measure for the depth of support for Taiwan in the US legislature.
What are the reasons why the US should support Taiwan?
First and foremost, Taiwan is a democracy, and a rather young one at that. It was only 20 years ago that Taiwanese — with a little help from the US — brought about a momentous transition to democracy. If the US wants democracy to prevail in East Asia, it had better stand by its allies.
Second, Taiwan matters economically and technologically. Most of the information technology gadgets, such as iPhones, iPads and so on, are designed in Taiwan. The country plays the same role in the -information-technology industry as Saudi Arabia in the oil industry. If it were absorbed by China, there would be a gaping hole in the international industrial supply chain with unforeseen consequences.
Third, because of its location Taiwan is of strategic importance, not only to the US, but also to Japan and South Korea: More than 85 percent of the oil for those two countries comes through the Taiwan Strait, which is still an open sea lane. If Taiwan was to be unified with China, Japan and South Korea would become very nervous.
For all these reasons, the US will continue its policy of support for Taiwan, ensuring — as stated in the TRA — that there will be a peaceful resolution and that the US will help maintain peace, security and stability in the Western-Pacific region, so Taiwanese can decide their future freely without interference from an authoritarian China.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a -Washington-based publication.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS