Paul Kane, a former international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, published an editorial article, To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan, in the New York Times on Nov. 10, suggesting that US President Barack Obama “should enter into closed-door negotiations with Chinese leaders to write off the US$1.14 trillion US debt currently held by China in exchange for a deal to end US military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan.” The idea that the US could choose to ditch Taiwan caused a sensation.
My own feeling is that Kane’s suggestion was akin to a practical joke made for its shock value and that it could have been intended to draw attention to the huge US debt. However, in light of the proposals made by some US academics’ for the Finlandization of Taiwan, a review of the Taiwan Relations Act and the 1982 Six Assurances, and the cancelation of US arms sales, the idea cannot simply be ignored by the government in Taipei.
Of primary relevance here is that these proposals have mostly been heard since 2008, during the period in which cross-strait relations have started to thaw. There was no mention of ditching Taiwan during the time the “two-state theory,” “one country on each side [of the Taiwan Strait] theory” and a referendum on Taiwan’s UN bid were broached, although Washington did complain to Taipei about those proposals.
To suggest that this idea is a result of factors related to the US itself, such as the relative decline in its national power, slow economic recovery or the reduction of its hegemonic role, is not entirely backed up by the facts.
The US maintains a leading international role despite its ailing economy because other countries still rely on it, and this need has not diminished over time. In terms of international politics, Western ideology has long had the upper hand, as seen in the “democratic revolutions” of the Arab spring. Whether Iranian and Syrian leaders face military sanctions is entirely up to the US. An “Arabic treaty organization” of the six Gulf Arab states is already starting to take shape. In East Asia, most countries, with the exception of Taiwan, China and North Korea, are striving to join the US--proposed Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP), and an “Asian treaty organization” is likely to also take shape.
In addition, the status of the US dollar as the No. 1 international reserve currency is now even more assured given the unfolding economic crises in the EU.
Militarily, since the US is slowly withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is now able to “return to Asia,” so as to maintain its international influence. As for China, the purchasing power of the European market is being undermined by the EU debt crisis and its own economy is preparing for a “hard landing,” courtesy of high inflation and oil prices. As a result, its reliance on the US market is expected to increase.
Despite the current economic downturn in the US, there is nothing to suggest that Washington feels the need to adopt a passive stance and curry favor with Beijing by ditching Taiwan.
It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that the idea is more a product of what Taiwan has, or has not, been doing. To consolidate Taiwan-US relations, we should drop the ideology that strong powers are always opposed. We should make the US realize that Taiwan-US relations are good for their national interests and that supporting Taiwan is beneficial to both sides. Taiwan has not done enough to adequately explain how Taiwan-US relations can serve US interests, or exactly why such benefits are irreplaceable.
Politicians in Taiwan, of both political persuasions, seem to be locked into a Cold War mentality. They hint that the US, in the context of a rising China, sees Taiwan as key to Washington’s containment of Beijing’s hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region. However, at the same time the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is putting a great many of its eggs in a basket made in China and this could well lead to a qualitative change in US thinking.
When one compares the drawn-out free-trade agreement negotiations between South Korea and the EU, the US and Australia with Taiwan’s attitude toward the US beef negotiations, it is hard to believe there was no under-the-table political deal behind the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China last year.
In this context, the major concern is not whether the US will observe the Six Assurances, but whether Taiwan remains democratic. As such, the proposal of a “cross-strait peace agreement” could easily be interpreted as a signal on Taiwan’s possible departure from its reliance on the US.
As Taipei worries about whether Washington is seriously considering ditching Taiwan, it is possible that Washington is equally concerned about Taipei ditching the US. As the Chinese saying goes, “worms appear only when the rot has already set in.”
Now that the idea of ditching Taiwan is out there, it is perhaps a good time for us to hold up the mirror to ourselves and engage in a little introspection.
Bill Chang is an assistant professor at Taipei Medical University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS