Relations between Taiwan and the US are an important issue and are given serious thought by many in the US, in Taiwan and elsewhere. Most of these emphasize the shared values between the two countries, Taiwan’s ascendance to democracy or the country’s strategic value in the western Pacific.
We have also seen some irresponsible ideas floated, such as those by George Washington University professor Charles Glaser, who thinks that by reducing the US’ commitment to Taiwan, it could get China to be cooperative in other areas, such as Iran or North Korea. I have maintained that these arguments are short-sighted and uninformed.
However, an op-ed piece in the New York Times (“To save the economy, ditch Taiwan,” Nov. 10) by former US Marine and erstwhile fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government Paul Kane is really the nadir in the discussion. Kane says the US should make a deal with China and ditch Taiwan in exchange for Beijing writing off about US$1.14 trillion in US debt.
First, I would seriously question the wisdom of publishing this piece. Does this really contribute to a serious and responsible discussion on the issues? Opinion pieces are supposed to provide food for thought and rational contemplation. This piece is outlandish — just think of the concept of selling a country — a democratic country no less — for US$1.14 trillion. Can the US somehow sell a free and democratic nation down the river in exchange for financial gain? How much could it get for Japan? Europe might consider selling Greece, the birthplace of democracy, for a fraction of that. How does that sit with the US’ fundamental values as the leader of the free world? What would other democratic nations in the region think about the US’ commitment to peace and stability in the region?
Second, what brought Kane to make the argument? As a former US Marine he presumably knows something about fighting for democracy and freedom. Isn’t that why he served in Iraq? Instead of shooting from the hip, he should inform himself of the heroic struggle that Taiwanese fought to achieve democracy. That is not something for Kane, or for the US for that matter, to so lightly give away. We need to ensure that the Taiwanse can determine their own future — free from interference by an authoritarian China.
And if China were in control of Taiwan, would that really help US strategic interests in the region? China’s People’s Liberation Army has already stated its ambitions rather clearly: It wants to control the western Pacific and push the US out. And Taiwan’s strategic location would provide it with a convenient springboard for its operations. So, contrary to Kane’s naive beliefs, such a deal would severely undermine the US’ position in East Asia.
There is no easy way out to reviving the US economy: One of our problems is that we have allowed too much of our manufacturing to disappear in China’s direction. That was due to the short-sighted perception that cheap labor over there would benefit the US consumer. What we got was a hollowed-out economy with less capability to produce a wide range of products. Innovation and entrepreneurship are still highly valued in this country, but we need to move away from the “cheaper-is-better” concept and ensure that we produce much more “Made in America.”
And as far as Taiwan is concerned: It is a free and democratic nation that deserves a full and equal place in the world community. It is not the US’ to sell down the river.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan. The views expressed in this article are his own.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS