Five thousand miles from Ukraine, an island nation with a population of 23.9 million is closely watching Russia’s devastating war in Ukraine. As the rhetoric “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow” resonates across Taiwanese and international social media, many international relations pundits have reflected upon the likelihood of China launching a military invasion of Taiwan.
For those with a less pessimistic viewpoint, Beijing is more likely just going to step up its intimidation of Taipei. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders’ calculations about attacking Taiwan “are political decisions that Moscow’s actions will not influence,” said David Sacks, a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Russia’s colossal missteps in Ukraine are unlikely to reduce Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) determination to annex Taiwan. To Xi and the CCP, China’s unification with Taiwan has been framed as a “historic mission and unshakable commitment” on which Chinese leaders would never make any concessions.
Meanwhile, China is closely monitoring the war in Ukraine and Russia’s countermeasures to the West’s sanctions on Moscow.
The flashpoints in Ukraine and Taiwan are not identical, but China might have learned invaluable lessons about Russia’s military tactics and its blunders as it faced Ukraine’s strong determination and heroic resistance. Yet one should not downplay the scenario of a cross-strait conflict.
China’s reining in of Hong Kong and its strong will to reinforce Sino-Russia ties with “no limits” have compounded the fears in Taiwan, presenting “the danger of a more immediate crisis over the Taiwan crisis than one might expect,” said Steven Goldstein of Harvard University’s Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies.
If Beijing launches a war against Taiwan, economic sanctions, reputational costs, military support and diplomatic boycotts would likely have a seismic effect on China’s reputation and economic strength.
Nevertheless, China has extensive experience in bearing these costs, especially with its repression of people in Xinjiang and intimidation of smaller states in the South China Sea.
Taiwan is not a passive learner. The government has bought US-made weapons to bolster the country’s capability of embracing asymmetric warfare, but the consensus between Taiwan and its counterpart has not been reached regarding Taiwan’s procurement of weapons not listed as “asymmetric.” Taiwan needs long-term and transparent support from the US and its allies.
For the US, efforts to support Taiwan should be in sync with Washington’s commitment to ensure a peaceful environment surrounding the nation and to promote regional security, as stated in US President Joe Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
As for Washington’s commitment to Taiwan, “the morality of a foreign policy should be judged not by words or intent, but by how well it does that,” American Global Strategies senior adviser Elbridge Colby aptly said.
The US has embraced “strategic ambiguity” to maintain a peaceful, albeit rocky, status quo in cross-strait relations.
However, during a news conference in Tokyo, when asked about whether the US military would intervene to defend Taiwan, Biden said “Yes,” adding: “That’s the commitment we made,” which seemed to undercut Washington’s longstanding “strategic ambiguity” policy.
White House officials later walked back Biden’s comments, saying he meant the US would continue to supply Taiwan with military equipment rather than send troops to defend its democratic partner.
Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia program at Washington-based think tank German Marshall Fund of the United States, said that Biden’s Taiwan gaffe and confusion are likely to “undermine deterrence than strengthen it.”
Moreover, Biden’s equivocal stance and misstatements imply that Washington’s commitment to defending Taiwan is not guaranteed.
Accordingly, the US should embrace “strategic clarity” and confirm that the superpower would defend Taiwan and gather like-minded powers to preserve regional security should China risk an all-out war. As China has become more assertive, the US cannot rely solely on economic sanctions or Beijing’s concerns about being condemned.
The US was naive in supporting China’s global integration, hoping that China could become a responsible stakeholder. Washington has paid a price for China’s growing belligerence and its deliberate attempt to overlook its assurances.
It is of utmost importance for the US to be “sharp and clear” in its Taiwan policy, as Taiwanese are skeptical about the US’s commitment to support them militarily.
A poll by the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation in March showed that only one-third of respondents believed that they would receive US military support in the event of a Chinese invasion. Such skepticism, in the long run, could hinder diplomatic and economic ties between Washington and Taipei.
Biden has not made any guarantee of deploying troops to Ukraine. China could interpret this as Biden seeking a prudent approach for fear of inflaming a disastrous war with a nuclear-armed rival. A credible pledge to support Taiwan and enhance its asymmetric defense strategy, while highlighting a US guarantee to come to Taiwan’s defense, is imperative in these uncertain times.
Washington’s “asymmetric” policy of limiting Taiwan’s access to US-made defense equipment could likely make Taiwan “more vulnerable to a successful Chinese attack,” the American Chamber of Commerce in Taiwan and the US-Taiwan Business Council said in a letter to US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mira Resnick.
To resolve this issue, the US should maximize Taiwan’s ability to conduct anti-submarine warfare and defend Taiwan’s airspace ahead of Beijing’s incursions into Taipei’s air defense identification zone. A clear and comprehensive blueprint to envisage potential scenarios in the Taiwan Strait and to formulate coherent strategies to enhance Taiwan’s wartime and peacetime deterrence should be among Washington’s priorities.
Strategic ambiguity failed grievously for Kyiv, and this mistake should not happen to Taiwan. From Ukraine to Taiwan, the same tragic fate could become a reality if Biden fails to hone a clear and comprehensive playbook to support the nation.
At the very least, Biden should not brew “strategic confusion” with confusing remarks when addressing the issue of defending or supporting Taiwan. Altogether, strategic clarity instead of strategic ambiguity should become essential, an approach the US could embrace as leverage to spearhead its Taiwan policy.
Huynh Tam Sang is an international relations lecturer at Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities, and a research fellow at the Taiwan NextGen Foundation. Chen Kuan-ting is CEO of the Taiwan NextGen Foundation and a former staff member at the National Security Council.
Election seasons expose societal divisions and contrasting visions about the future of Taiwan. They also offer opportunities for leaders to forge unity around practical ideas for strengthening Taiwan’s resilience. Beijing has in the past sought to exacerbate divisions within Taiwan. For Beijing, a divided Taiwan is less likely to pursue permanent separation. It also is more manipulatable than a united Taiwan. A divided polity has lower trust in government institutions and diminished capacity to solve societal challenges. As my co-authors Richard Bush, Bonnie Glaser, and I recently wrote in our book US-Taiwan Relations: Will China’s Challenge Lead to a Crisis?, “Beijing wants
Taiwan has never had a president who is not from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Could next year’s presidential election put a third-party candidate in office? The contenders who have thrown their hats into the ring are Vice President William Lai (賴清德) of the DPP, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). A monthly poll released by my-formosa.com on Monday showed support for Hou nosediving from 26 percent to 18.3 percent, the lowest among the three presidential hopefuls. It was a surprising
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) as its candidate for next year’s presidential election. The selection process was replete with controversy, mainly because the KMT has never stipulated a set of protocols for its presidential nominations. Yet, viewed from a historical perspective, the KMT has improved to some extent. There are two fundamental differences between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP): First, the DPP believes that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign country with independent autonomy, meaning that Taiwan and China are two different entities. The KMT, on the
The presidential election is to be held concurrently with the legislative elections in January next year. While former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration was fraught with challenges, as he never commanded a legislative majority, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) did not have this problem. In her two terms in office, she has been able to carry out her vision and policies and thereby bear full responsibility for her performance. As a result, the public is not only waiting on tenterhooks to see the results of the presidential election, but also whether the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will be able to hold
RSS