On July 4, Taiwan was in the news again in a US newspaper: The Wall Street Journal carried a “what if” report by US analyst Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution arguing that if Donald Trump won the US presidential election, and if he decided to withdraw US forces from Japan and South Korea, then the US could not realistically deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan, and then Taiwan’s leaders might seek to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
While it is essential that military strategists play such mindgames, it is extremely unhelpful that O’Hanlon published such an essay in the public domain such as the Wall Street Journal.
Here are some of the reasons: For starters, most foreign-policy academics agree that a Trump presidency would be disastrous for the US. Through all his statements, Trump has shown himself to be incapable of taking a reasonable or rational position on almost any topic, and has spewed one outrageous slur after another.
No disagreement with O’Hanlon on that basic point. However, is it necessary to drag Taiwan into the equation? Because of its special status, US policymakers already have a hard time perceiving Taiwan through “normal” lenses and are apt to avoid or postpone decisions necessary for sound relations with the democratic island nation.
Against this background, yet another scare scenario from a US analyst does not help establish a solid basis for going forward and developing better ties that really bind. It feeds into the unholy perception that Taiwan is “a problem,” instead of the democratic success story that it really is.
In any case, O’Hanlon’s scenario is built on a lot of “ifs.” One of the most peculiar ones is his assertion that “if the American security umbrella is withdrawn, then Taiwan would have incentive to develop a nuclear deterrent.”
To be honest, these are two of the most highly unlikely scenarios: Even in the (highly unlikely) case that Mr Trump is elected, it is extremely unlikely that his administration would simply walk away from East Asia, in spite of his irresponsible campaign rhetoric.
And then O’Hanlon refers to the (even more unlikely) possibility that Taiwan might resort to the development of nuclear weapons. In the process he mentions two cases in the 1970s and 1980s when the repressive Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime did attempt to develop a nuclear capability.
However, he neglects to mention that in the meantime Taiwan has evolved into a vibrant democracy and is now governed by a democratically elected Democratic Progressive Party government that is even wary of nuclear power as a means of generating electricity, let alone touch the very toxic issue of a nuclear deterrent.
As mentioned by O’Hanlon, no major Taiwanese politician has advocated this. The question to him is: Why is a US analyst then even talking about it? That is quite irresponsible.
What is needed in Taiwan-US relations is a steady hand that gradually brings ties between the two countries to a new level. Far-fetched worst-case scare scenarios are unhelpful in this context.
It is indeed essential that the US stands by Taiwan in accordance with the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, and helps Taiwan defend itself against China’s intimidation, encroachment or an outright attack.
The “toolbox” consists of the full range of means, from diplomatic interactions with the People’s Republic of China, via deterrence and power politics to military means.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
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