The US’ Taiwan policy act on Sept. 14 was approved by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 17 to 5. The administration of US President Joe Biden has kept a close eye on its progress before it enters the US Congress for a vote.
The act was approved with slight modifications, reflecting a compromise between the US legislative and executive branches, and the final version released by the committee likely adheres to the stance of the Biden administration, as well as Democratic and Republican Party positions.
The smooth completion of its lawmaking process is just a matter of time.
When the act was made public, pro-unification voices in Taiwan came out to smear and slander it. Some tried to deceive fellow Taiwanese with intentional mistranslations, some misinterpreted the US’ intention to defend Taiwan, while others tried to imply that the act reflects only the will of the US Senate rather than the US government.
However, as deceptive as these fallacies might be, they cannot change an established US strategy that has long been determined.
If passed, the act would require the US Department of Defense to submit an annual Taiwan defense report on the premise of a “denial strategy.”
There is a fundamental difference between “denial” and “deterrence.” The US’ strategy to prevent China from attacking Taiwan has shifted from deterrence to denial, and the Taiwan policy act would only formalize what is already an implicit strategy.
Deterrence is to use strength and power to prevent an adversary from taking a desired action. Under a denial strategy, the US would continue to assist Taiwan in improving its self-defense capabilities.
The act says that the US would provide military assistance at no cost to help Taiwan develop asymmetric combat capabilities and enhance Taiwan’s international status.
The intention is to make it increasingly difficult for China to threaten Taiwan so that it will cease trying. This is also the reason Biden has said four times that the US would defend Taiwan if attacked.
During his visit to Japan in May, Biden said that he would be willing to use force to defend Taiwan, which many interpreted as a gaffe.
However, as he has continued to state the same point, it is obvious that what he said in Japan was no slip of the tongue. Biden intends to make the denial strategy clear.
The latest example came during an interview on the 60 Minutes television program aired on Sept. 15.
When asked if US forces would defend Taiwan against an attack, Biden firmly replied: “Yes.”
The US has learned from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that making it clear that aggression is not tolerated is the best way to avoid war and maintain peace. Facing China’s intention to attack Taiwan, the US has come to realize that the vague strategy of the past could no longer work. It must clearly make China understand that if it makes reckless moves against Taiwan, the US would send troops to defend it.
Taiwan should certainly be self-reliant as well. With the help of the US military, Taiwan should more actively strengthen its combat capabilities and strive to improve its international status.
Some Taiwanese interpreted Biden’s remarks on 60 Minutes as not supporting Taiwanese independence.
“Taiwan makes their own judgements about their independence,” Biden said.
Based on the principle of national self-determination, Taiwan’s independence requires Taiwanese to express their will, which is not for the US to do.
“That’s their decision,” Biden said, showing respect for Taiwanese.
Now, Taiwanese should consider that it is time to show the will to assert self-determination.
Tommy Lin is director of Wu Fu Eye Clinic and president of the Formosa Republican Association.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did