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
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.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US