In defense of Taiwan
To support his argument in a recent op-ed article in the New York Times, entitled “Save our economy, ditch Taiwan” (“‘New York Times’ op-ed calls on US to sell out Taiwan,” Nov. 13, page 1), Paul Kane, former international security fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, quotes US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen’s claim that “the most significant threat to our national security is our debt.”
Actually, the most significant threat to the national security of the US, inextricably linked to the national security of our allies in the Asia-Pacific region, is the short-sighted and simplistic thinking that underlies Kane’s “analysis” of US-Taiwan-China relations.
At last weekend’s APEC summit in Hawaii, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined the intention of US President Barack Obama’s administration to invest more economic, diplomatic and military resources in the rapidly developing region.
However, Kane says US national security derives less from “our military might” and more “from the strength, agility and competitiveness of our economy.”
In fact, attentiveness to the strength of its military does not preclude the improvement of the US’ economy. Both factors inform the US’ ability to protect its interests.
In 1996, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army mobilized its troops and conducted missile tests near southern Taiwan in response to the “threat” of “separatist” Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) anticipated presidency. Thereafter, then-US president Bill Clinton’s decision to direct two aircraft carrier groups near Taiwan showed the US’ commitment to deterring Chinese aggression and maintaining the “status quo,” not only with regards to Taiwan, but in the region as a whole.
The superiority of the US military, not necessarily the superiority of the US economy, contributed to neutralizing tense cross-strait relations.
Kane characterizes the “status quo” as “dangerous.”
What is dangerous about the current strategic ambiguity of the US toward Taiwan? It ensures the de facto independence of Taiwan, prevents a declaration of independence by Taiwan and deters a Chinese economic and/or military takeover of Taiwan.
US policy buys time for Washington and Taipei. Their partnership provides the regional and national stability needed for the further development of democratization and national identity on Taiwan.
A heightened international profile for Taiwan, as well as greater economic competitiveness that is not exclusively dependent on the Chinese economy, makes the non-democratic unification of Taiwan and China more costly in terms of economics and prestige for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). What is the likelihood of the CCP, focused foremost on self-preservation, allowing “hawks” to hijack its cross-strait policy and take Taiwan by force, putting itself at risk of an international backlash that would jeopardize its economic growth? The answer is that it is increasingly unlikely, thus making Kane’s hypothetical “multitrillion-dollar war” over Taiwan dishonestly alarmist.
In addition, Kane concludes Taiwan’s “gradually integrating with China economically” means “the island’s absorption into mainland China is inevitable.”
Ironically, ever since Lee’s presidency and especially that of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), cross-strait economic integration has increased. Concurrently, so has the popularity of the Taiwan independence movement, or at least acceptance of a Taiwanese identity and future distinct from the People’s Republic of China.
As long as the 228 Massacre, the White Terror era and Chinese violence against Taiwan in its seizure of the Yijiangshan Islands in 1955, its shelling of Matsu and Kinmen in 1958 and missile bullying just prior to Taiwan’s first democratic presidential election in 1996 remain integral to Taiwanese history, Chinese absorption of Taiwan is far from inevitable.
The issue of diversifying Taiwanese economic relations has already entered the mainstream, most recently thanks to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Regardless of whether Tsai becomes the next president of Taiwan, the DPP will continue to combat the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) and overall pan-blue alliance’s China-centric socioeconomic proposals.
Kane also says a US-Taiwan “deal could pressure Beijing to end its political and economic support for pariah states like Iran, North Korea and Syria and to exert a moderating influence over an unstable Pakistan.”
He dismisses, unethically, Taiwan’s right to decide its own future, as well as the strategic benefits the US garners from its support of democratization in the Asia-Pacific region.
Finally, Kane’s confidence in a “trade-off” of Taiwan for less national debt as somehow possibly applying “pressure” to Beijing in its dealings with other non-democratic governments is misguided. Probably, the Chinese leadership will interpret such a “deal” as a US concession, evidence of decline, and accordingly implement a more domineering foreign policy that would threaten US alliances with South Korea, Japan and, potentially, a unified Korea.
The CCP would not view the US “ditching” Taiwan as a harbinger of peace and post-Cold War politics because, despite recent signs of inner-party democracy, it still fundamentally exists as a Leninist anachronism that refuses to renounce the use of force against Taiwan.
Contrary to Kane’s wisdom, the CCP would not rely on the strength of its annual economic growth rate of close to 10 percent to secure its geostrategic interests. Can the US and Taiwan afford to?
Sophia Solivio
Northampton, Massachusetts
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS