Behind the controversial US$5.85 billion US arms sale to Taiwan announced last month rages a heated argument over whether the US should abandon the country to be absorbed by China or should defend it from Chinese conquest.
The sale provides Taiwan with new radar, weapons and structural improvements for its current fleet of 145 F-16A/B aircraft plus a five-year extension of pilot training at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona and a supply of spare parts. Left open was the possibility of selling advanced F-16C/Ds later.
An unnamed US Department of State official in a press briefing asserted that the sale reflected “the longstanding bipartisan commitment in the United States to the security of Taiwan.” He said it was part of efforts by US President Barack Obama’s administration to strengthen ties with Taiwan in trade, people exchanges and energy research.
Chinese officials immediately objected to the sale and said China would retaliate by reducing military exchanges with the US. China claims Taiwan, to which Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) forces fled after their defeat in the Chinese Civil War in 1949, is an integral part of China and “unification” is a core national interest.
A large majority of the people in Taiwan, however, have shown in polls that they prefer to remain separate from China. A mid-level Taiwanese government official, whose grandparents had come from China in 1949, was asked if she considered herself Chinese or Taiwanese.
“I am Chinese by culture,” she said, “but Taiwan is my home.”
Americans who say the Taiwan issue is the most likely cause of war — potentially nuclear war — between the US and China argue that Washington should accommodate Beijing to preclude that war. They say the US should recognize China as a major power.
A former US diplomat, Charles Freeman, advocates accommodation: “For Americans, the Taiwan issue presents an unwelcome choice between potential long-term military antagonism with China and the perpetuation, despite rapid cross-Strait economic and social integration, of Taiwan’s de facto political separation from the mainland.”
Now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, Freeman, who speaks fluent Chinese, deplores US support for Taiwan: “Given the huge stakes for the United States in our strategic interaction with China, this choice might well strike someone looking afresh at the situation as oddly misguided.”
Those who argue for defending Taiwan point to the Taiwan Relations Act, a law adopted by the US Congress in 1979 to protest then-US president Jimmy Carter’s decision to switch US diplomatic relations from Taipei to Beijing. It provides for a US commitment to Taiwan just short of ironclad.
Those supporting Taiwan say the US would be morally wrong to abandon the democracy that Taiwan has become. They say other nations in Asia, notably Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand, which have security treaties with Washington, would lose confidence in the US.
Geographically, Taiwan sits astride the northern entrance to the South China Sea through which more shipping passes each year than through the Panama and Suez canals combined. Control of Taiwan would give China a potential check over that vital waterway.
Another former diplomat, Alan Romberg, of the Stimson Center think tank in Washington, wrote in a paper that Taiwan’s security is important to the US for at least four reasons:
‧ A long history of US support for Taiwan’s security.
“One does not readily turn away from that,” he said.
‧ Democracy and economic progress favor “protecting the island against forced surrender to the Mainland [sic] rather than abandoning it.”
‧ Chinese use of military force “would be destabilizing and harmful to American political, economic and security concerns.” Deterring that would be “very much a US strategic interest.”
‧ Refusing to stand up to force would set off tremors throughout Asia and would raise doubts about US nuclear deterrence and might cause Tokyo, Seoul or Taipei to develop nuclear weapons.
While the US would accept an agreement on Taiwan-China relations that was negotiated peacefully, US economic stakes in Taiwan are high. Trade with China is ballooning, but that with Taiwan is respectable for a nation of 23 million people.
Long ago, former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain sought to appease Adolf Hitler by declining to oppose his invasion of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain said the British need not enter a war “because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.”
To which Winston Churchill was reported to have muttered: “The government had to choose between shame and war. They chose shame and they will get war.”
Richard Halloran is a commentator based in Hawaii.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
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.
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
RSS