On Jan. 24 at George Washington University, Scott Bates, president of the Center for National Policy, elaborated on his provocative “Taiwan 21” plan, in which he outlined his ideas to enhance Taiwan’s security and its regional standing within East Asia. While his proposals are well intentioned, they fail to take into account the realities on the ground in Taiwan, both militarily and politically.
Bates said that Taiwan should make a “solemn pledge that in the event of hostilities, the Republic of China will never conduct any military action on the shores of China.” This declaration would give Taiwan “the moral high ground” and cause China to “lose face” in such a conflict, causing China to become too “humiliated and embarrassed” to continue such an attack on Taiwan.
Beijing has shown that it places little value in international perception when it comes to “internal affairs.” The Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, as well as continued military and police crackdowns in Xinjiang and Tibet, shows that the notion of Taiwan taking a moral high ground in a military conflict with China would have little or no value in the international arena, save for token condemnations and expressions of anger from nations that have repeatedly shown to be guided in their actions by an economic compass rather than a humanitarian one.
In strategic terms, the notion of Taiwan publicly renouncing any military means of retaliation from a Chinese initiated attack on it is beyond comprehension.
Although Taiwan’s ability to launch a counter-offensive in the scenario listed above could be limited in scope and effectiveness due to initial damage from military action, it is a possibility the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would have to weigh heavily before taking any military action against Taiwan.
To lose military personnel and hardware over the Taiwan Strait is one thing; to have ports, fuel and missile depots and military installations damaged or destroyed in China is another, and could have a devastating impact on the psyche of both the PLA and the civilian population. Such a valuable tool should not be abandoned by Taiwan for the sake of potential goodwill among the international community.
Bates also suggested that the Taiwanese army be modified and recast as a “self-defense force.” This new force could then, according to Bates, become a premier disaster response team in Asia, providing states in need with airlift capacity and logistical support. While this idea is noble in theory, it is not grounded in reality.
The reason? The same international community that Bates feels Taiwan should garner goodwill with to solidify its future will undoubtedly be under pressure from Beijing to refuse such aid from Taiwan.
China’s successful lobbying in 2004 excluded Taiwan from the international tsunami donors coordination conference and similar pressure from Beijing could force states to refuse humanitarian assistance from Taiwan, so even the most advanced, well-trained disaster response force in Asia could find itself remaining in Taiwan, helpless to carry out its primary mission of disaster relief in the region.
Bates places unrealistic expectations on what the reactions of the international community would be if a benign Taiwan were attacked by the People’s Republic of China. If history is any indicator, states around the globe would protest, but China, seeing Taiwan as the last territorial remnant of Western imperialism that has not been reclaimed by the motherland, would pay little attention.
No amount of well-intentioned pledges from Taipei would stop Beijing in the case of conflict if it sensed an opportunity to close its last geographic wound from 1949 that has not yet healed.
Brian Benedictus is a research fellow at the Formosa Foundation.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS