In defense of Taiwan
To support his argument in a recent op-ed article in the New York Times, entitled “Save our economy, ditch Taiwan” (“‘New York Times’ op-ed calls on US to sell out Taiwan,” Nov. 13, page 1), Paul Kane, former international security fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, quotes US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen’s claim that “the most significant threat to our national security is our debt.”
Actually, the most significant threat to the national security of the US, inextricably linked to the national security of our allies in the Asia-Pacific region, is the short-sighted and simplistic thinking that underlies Kane’s “analysis” of US-Taiwan-China relations.
At last weekend’s APEC summit in Hawaii, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined the intention of US President Barack Obama’s administration to invest more economic, diplomatic and military resources in the rapidly developing region.
However, Kane says US national security derives less from “our military might” and more “from the strength, agility and competitiveness of our economy.”
In fact, attentiveness to the strength of its military does not preclude the improvement of the US’ economy. Both factors inform the US’ ability to protect its interests.
In 1996, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army mobilized its troops and conducted missile tests near southern Taiwan in response to the “threat” of “separatist” Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) anticipated presidency. Thereafter, then-US president Bill Clinton’s decision to direct two aircraft carrier groups near Taiwan showed the US’ commitment to deterring Chinese aggression and maintaining the “status quo,” not only with regards to Taiwan, but in the region as a whole.
The superiority of the US military, not necessarily the superiority of the US economy, contributed to neutralizing tense cross-strait relations.
Kane characterizes the “status quo” as “dangerous.”
What is dangerous about the current strategic ambiguity of the US toward Taiwan? It ensures the de facto independence of Taiwan, prevents a declaration of independence by Taiwan and deters a Chinese economic and/or military takeover of Taiwan.
US policy buys time for Washington and Taipei. Their partnership provides the regional and national stability needed for the further development of democratization and national identity on Taiwan.
A heightened international profile for Taiwan, as well as greater economic competitiveness that is not exclusively dependent on the Chinese economy, makes the non-democratic unification of Taiwan and China more costly in terms of economics and prestige for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). What is the likelihood of the CCP, focused foremost on self-preservation, allowing “hawks” to hijack its cross-strait policy and take Taiwan by force, putting itself at risk of an international backlash that would jeopardize its economic growth? The answer is that it is increasingly unlikely, thus making Kane’s hypothetical “multitrillion-dollar war” over Taiwan dishonestly alarmist.
In addition, Kane concludes Taiwan’s “gradually integrating with China economically” means “the island’s absorption into mainland China is inevitable.”
Ironically, ever since Lee’s presidency and especially that of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), cross-strait economic integration has increased. Concurrently, so has the popularity of the Taiwan independence movement, or at least acceptance of a Taiwanese identity and future distinct from the People’s Republic of China.
As long as the 228 Massacre, the White Terror era and Chinese violence against Taiwan in its seizure of the Yijiangshan Islands in 1955, its shelling of Matsu and Kinmen in 1958 and missile bullying just prior to Taiwan’s first democratic presidential election in 1996 remain integral to Taiwanese history, Chinese absorption of Taiwan is far from inevitable.
The issue of diversifying Taiwanese economic relations has already entered the mainstream, most recently thanks to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Regardless of whether Tsai becomes the next president of Taiwan, the DPP will continue to combat the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) and overall pan-blue alliance’s China-centric socioeconomic proposals.
Kane also says a US-Taiwan “deal could pressure Beijing to end its political and economic support for pariah states like Iran, North Korea and Syria and to exert a moderating influence over an unstable Pakistan.”
He dismisses, unethically, Taiwan’s right to decide its own future, as well as the strategic benefits the US garners from its support of democratization in the Asia-Pacific region.
Finally, Kane’s confidence in a “trade-off” of Taiwan for less national debt as somehow possibly applying “pressure” to Beijing in its dealings with other non-democratic governments is misguided. Probably, the Chinese leadership will interpret such a “deal” as a US concession, evidence of decline, and accordingly implement a more domineering foreign policy that would threaten US alliances with South Korea, Japan and, potentially, a unified Korea.
The CCP would not view the US “ditching” Taiwan as a harbinger of peace and post-Cold War politics because, despite recent signs of inner-party democracy, it still fundamentally exists as a Leninist anachronism that refuses to renounce the use of force against Taiwan.
Contrary to Kane’s wisdom, the CCP would not rely on the strength of its annual economic growth rate of close to 10 percent to secure its geostrategic interests. Can the US and Taiwan afford to?
Sophia Solivio
Northampton, Massachusetts
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past