An opinion piece in the Taipei Times by a National Open University law lecturer tried to conceal the writer’s pro-unification pretensions with an appeal to “peace,” but its argument was so upended, the logic so confused, that he completely misrepresented the relations between the US, China and Taiwan (“Taiwan is in between Washington and Beijing," Jan. 1, page 8).
To realize his goal of implementing “one country, two systems” in Taiwan, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is expanding Beijing’s military capability, building military bases in the South China Sea, sending fighter jets over the Taiwan Strait median line, and increasingly conducting military drills in the South and East China seas.
Taking Taiwan is the sole objective of Beijing’s Taiwan policy, but Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation and the vast majority of Taiwanese oppose unification with China. Faced with the threat of invasion, Taiwan’s most important task is strengthening its cooperation with the US.
Many pro-China individuals, suspicious of the US, believe that if Taiwan gets too close to the US, it might get caught in the cross-fire between the US and China. The reverse is true.
To warn China not to do anything to alter the “status quo” and to maintain the balance of power in the Western Pacific region, the US last year sent a strike group of three aircraft carriers to patrol the region, and show its ability and resolve to maintain security in the Asia-Pacific and the Strait, all to prevent Beijing from making any hasty moves.
It is China’s bellicosity, its intent to annex Taiwan and threaten peace in the Asia-Pacific region that have led to a worsening in US-China ties. It is the dire situation in which Taiwan finds itself, that has necessitated this intervention by the US. How can the writer turn the situation completely on its head and suggest that, with US-Sino relations deteriorating, Taiwan might get caught in the middle?
Given the crucial nature of Taiwan’s geopolitical location to the Indo-Pacific strategy, its exemplary response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its importance in the global semiconductors supply chain, if Taiwan is lost, the US would not only see its defense of the first island chain and of its Indo-Pacific strategy disintegrate, it would also be announcing to the whole world that the democratic system is inferior to socialist authoritarianism — a huge blow to the development of democratic societies and human civilization since the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago.
The US is opposing China and protecting Taiwan to defend democracy and human civilization, and because of Taiwan’s strategic location. How can the writer say that Taiwan is being used as a “bargaining chip” against China, or that Washington is somehow using Taiwan to “needle” Beijing?
Faced with invasion, if Taiwan is not to rely on the US, then on whom should it rely? And how is it that Taiwan is somehow “caught between the US and China”?
The US has passed Taiwan-friendly legislation such as the Taiwan Travel Act to bolster bilateral relations and improve Taiwan’s ability to defend itself. US politicians on both sides of the aisle understand that the “one China” policy has run its course and can no longer be used to maintain cross-strait peace, and that the US needs to apply the room for maneuvering within this strategy to assist Taiwan via every available channel.
How can the writer say the US has “blown a hole” in the “one China” principle and left Taiwan with no way out? Presumably the writer would prefer to see Taiwan take on China unaided, and become swallowed whole.
Michael Lin is a retired diplomat who served in the US.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers