The Ministry of National Defense on Wednesday confirmed that a US warship had earlier in the week sailed through the Taiwan Strait, the ninth such transit this year.
The US Seventh Fleet said that the transits were part of “operations in support of security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region,” while analysts suggested that the transits might be in response to China’s increased pressure on Taiwan.
As the US is committed to regional peace and stability, and to countering China’s challenges to this stability, it might be a good time to revisit the issue of port calls in Taiwan by the US Navy. US representatives discussed the issue in July 2017, when the US House of Representatives was passing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. US Senator Ted Cruz and others raised the issue in 2016, when US-China relations first became strained over China’s militarization of the South China Sea. Cruz at the time said that the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier could make port calls in Kaohsiung, as China had refused to allow the carrier strike group to make a port call in Hong Kong. Last year, China again denied a port call to the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, and in August this year denied a port call to two US warships.
Ministry of National Defense officials in 2016 said that the Port of Kaohsiung was deep enough to accommodate the Stennis, but lacked facilities for such a large ship to dock. The government would need to invest in the port if the US Navy were to make calls in the future, but the payoff would be worth the investment.
Former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) director Stephen M. Young in an opinion piece in the Taipei Times on Jan. 1 described how US Navy ships would frequently visit Kaohsiung in the 1960s. He said that the city was bustling with naval officers, some on R&R and some stationed there as advisers. These officers needed facilities and services in the city that catered to them, which would have generated economic productivity.
Upgrading port facilities for carriers would also create jobs, in the construction of facilities and their maintenance, as well as in the staffing of those facilities by specialized personnel.
Of course, China would object to US Navy visits, but given that the Seventh Fleet was again denied permission to make a port call in Hong Kong, the US is fully justified in making port calls in Taiwan.
Beijing cited the ongoing protests in Hong Kong as the reason for denying the port call to amphibious transport dock USS Green Bay and guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie, but analysts have also cited the ongoing US-China trade dispute as a possible cause. Either way, the situation was a big disappointment for the US Navy and Hong Kongers.
“The US Navy has a long track record of successful port visits to Hong Kong, and we expect them to continue,” AIT Director Brent Christensen was cited as saying in a Bloomberg report on Aug. 13.
“As Consul General to Hong Kong from 2010-13, my staff and I looked forward to the regular visits there by US warships. So did the government and merchants of Hong Kong,” Young wrote.
While China would complain if the US Navy made port calls in Taiwan, it is unlikely to risk any action. Calling the US back to the table for trade negotiations is evidence that even Beijing sees the limits of its rhetoric. Young said he knew “firsthand that defense planners in Washington and at Pacific Fleet Headquarters in Honolulu have long maintained specific operational plans to respond to a direct threat to Taiwan,” and China knows this.
Taipei should engage the US on possible port calls. Doing so would be economically productive and would reassure Taiwanese of Washington’s commitment to the nation.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his