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.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS