There has been considerable talk in the US recently to the effect that Washington will, and even should, end its role as Taiwan’s protector. A lot of the talk is serious.
There is good reason for this. In 2009, when US President Barack Obama visited China, he concurred that Taiwan is a Chinese “core interest” and has subsequently delayed and limited arms sales to Taiwan. The US Congress seems to have no interest in Taiwan these days with so many other issues to deal with. The US public does not want another war. A number of former top officials have suggested the country let China have Taiwan.
The central concern is that the US is suffering from strategic overstretching and debilitating debt. Thus, Washington finds it impossible to sustain its role as the world’s policeman. Many say cut back now. In fact, Obama has already sliced the US defense budget considerably.
In contrast, China has trillions of US dollars in foreign exchange and its economy is roaring ahead with a 9 or 10 percent growth rate, compared with the US’ 1 or 2 percent. The US will go broke if it engages in an arms race with China. In fact, some say China could cause the US to collapse as the US did to the Soviet Union a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, some in the US say the government and ruling party in Taiwan want unification with China, while the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would pick a fight with China to suit its own objectives and draw the Washington into another war. Taiwan’s supporters in the US are understandably perplexed.
However, is this really the situation?
Starting with Taiwan, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) hardly wants to trade his position as head of state of what is for all intents and purposes a sovereign country for a lesser position in China.
Most of the top leaders of his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) would prefer to be where they are and cannot be optimistic about their future in a Chinese government. Hence, they do not really want unification except as an ideal or in the distant future.
DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is not supporting independence, at least not as former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) did, which angered Washington. Chen is in prison and his influence in the party is almost gone. Tsai is the DPP’s candidate for the presidential election next year and has an agenda that focuses on other issues.
Then there is the question of whether China wants to incorporate Taiwan. Of course it does. But now? China’s paramount foreign policy objective is to keep its economic expansion on track. Taiwan contributes to that. Incorporation would not improve the situation; in fact it would likely have the opposite effect as it would anger and/or scare many of China’s commercial partners.
Another reason China probably does not want Taiwan immediately is that unification would likely be seen as a victory for the military; civilian leaders want to keep the military under control. (Many think it has become a loose cannon of late.) Chinese leaders feel that Taiwan will eventually want unification because of China’s economic attraction and that would be a better way of solving the problem.
Though some say Taiwan has no real value to the US in today’s new strategic climate, this is not the case. In control of Taiwan, China would use its west coast ports, especially Suao (蘇澳), as a submarine base. Its subs would enter deep water where they could not be tracked and could appear without warning off the coast of California where US cities would be in range of its missiles.
Just as important, if it appeared that Washington had abandoned Taiwan, or China achieved unification through pressure, the US’ credibility would be lost and so would its Asian allies.
Taiwan is also an indispensible source of intelligence on China, intelligence which the US needs. Add to this the fact that Taiwan is a democracy and became such under US tutelage. Abandoning Taiwan would clearly undermine Washington’s call for democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Finally, it appears (at least when realist voices are heard from the Obama administration) that the US is pursuing a balance of power strategy in Asia to deal with China’s military expansion. It has been shoring up its relationship with Japan, ASEAN nations and India. Japan and India are fearful of China’s rise and want to balance it and ASEAN countries want to keep US influence in the region.
What is nice about a balance or equilibrium system is that it can be fairly inexpensive for the balancer — the US. Thus, the US may be able to maintain some presence in Asia, the center of the world’s economic and military growth.
Most US policymakers also realize that opting out of Asia means the US can no longer claim to be a great power. Geopolitically it would appear that Taiwan has a role to play in such a system. At least Washington needs to think of this as an option.
John Copper is the Stanley J. Buckman professor of international studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at