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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95