The chorus of opinion leaders and pundits in the US calling for Washington’s “abandonment” of Taiwan is getting louder, a symptom of a growing, but false, perception in the US that China holds the key to all of Washington’s problems. This is not only a dangerous misreading of Beijing’s intentions, but also reflects a lack of public understanding about Taiwan’s sovereign status.
Unification — by force if necessary — with Taiwan is a top priority for Beijing.
Yet, although relations between Taipei and Beijing have thawed in recent years under President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, Chinese military capabilities and missile deployments across the Strait have not only increased with growing sophistication and lethality, but Beijing’s military ambitions have extended beyond the Strait.
The arguments coming from the abandon-Taiwan camp were taken to a new low by a New York Times op-ed piece on Nov. 10 titled “To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan.” In the article, the author expresses the hope that if the US were to “give up” Taiwan, Beijing would accommodate Washington’s interests — to the point that Beijing would write off US$1.14 trillion of Washington’s debt and halt its support for Iran, North Korea, Syria and Pakistan.
The writer’s argument depends on his assumption that the current cross-strait “status quo” is unsustainable. In other words, Taiwan’s absorption by China is inevitable and therefore the US should ditch Taiwan.
His assertion misses an important fact: Taiwan, under its existing constitutional framework, exists as an independent, sovereign state. The absence of official diplomatic relations does not negate this objective reality.
If Washington were to revoke the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act, the US would essentially be condoning the absorption of one state by another state.
However, neither the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) nor the Democratic Progressive Party would ever subjugate the Republic of China/Taiwan to Chinese Communist Party rule.
The partisan political environment in Taipei does not serve Taiwan’s national interests when political parties vilify their opponents’ position to the extreme. However, partisan bickering is a facet of every multiparty democracy. And the US, of all places, should understand how democracies work.
Moreover, if Beijing wants to genuinely engage in political dialogue with Taiwan, then it should do so with dignity by first accepting that it is engaging another sovereign government. This is the only way to build cross-strait political trust.
As Washington moves to re-establish its presence and develop comprehensive ties with the Asia-Pacific region, the need for clarity on Taiwan’s sovereignty will become an important factor for perceptions of the US’ staying power in the region.
US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell stated at a US House of Representatives hearing earlier this year that how the US manages the US-Taiwan relationship “will have a great impact on the way our partners view us across the Asia-Pacific region.”
Ambiguity from Washington over Taiwan’s sovereignty would only embolden Beijing’s claims.
If some are proposing the “abandonment” of Taiwan, then an equally radical solution should be on the table.
To clear any doubt about US commitment to the Asia-Pacific and check Beijing’s wanderlust, Washington should recognize that Taiwan, under its existing constitutional framework, is an independent, sovereign state.
This would be a bold move by Washington that would help create the conditions for negotiations on equal footing and facilitate enduring peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and the Asia-Pacific region.
Russell Hsiao is a senior research fellow at the Project 2049 Institute.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his