A reader complained some days ago that he opened this newspaper to read something pungent editorially about the war on Iraq and was most disappointed to find wishy-washy fence-sitting "lets all hope it is over as soon as possible" platitudes instead. Well, you can't please everyone. But given the lack of local news of substance on which to comment, we thought we might, just for once, address our critics.
Our staff is comprised of people from at least six different nations, and at least half of them are Westerners. It would be interesting to say that debate over the war has raged in our newsroom, but that would not be the case: almost everyone is against it, the US citizens, by the way, most of all. But this is on a personal level. What this newspaper has to think about is not the ideals or prejudices of its own editorial staff but the specific interests of Taiwan in this conflict.
Let us then start with the basics. Taiwan is threatened by Chinese irredentism. It is difficult for the country to defend itself without outside help, and this includes the provision of weapons that Taiwan cannot develop itself and practical military help in the event of an attack. The only country which is likely to come to Taiwan's aid in the event of an attack by China is the US. These are the plain facts, wherever you might stand on the Iraq war or any other of the great geo-political questions of our time. Taiwan cannot stand alone against the huge threat across the Taiwan Strait. There is only one country that is prepared to give it even the weakest of security commitments. That is the US.
Fashionable criticisms of US unilateralism are, therefore, of no interest to Taiwan. Here, the kind of multilateralism espoused in Europe means no more than a large economic area incapable of projecting military power, so in thrall to China's business opportunities that none of its member nations dare grant President Chen Shui-bian (
Closer to Taiwan's concerns perhaps is the talk of the US' trashing of international law in pursuing its attack on Iraq. After all, isn't Taiwan's claim to be treated in the world as the nation it plainly is based on the right of self-determination granted by the UN Charter? Anything that undermines the UN and its charter, some argue, should therefore be viewed as detrimental to Taiwan. The short answer to this is that if the UN lived up to its ideals Taiwan would be a member; that it isn't raises obvious questions about the UN.
So let us be blunt about Taiwan's position. Whatever its chattering classes, which of course include ourselves, might think privately about the war in Iraq, those who want to see this island maintain its independence -- who tend to be of a "liberal internationalist" rather than Chinese nationalist persuasion -- would be ill-advised to bite the hand that defends them.
There are legitimate worries that might be discussed. If the war or its aftermath go badly or simply become too expensive, the US might lose its taste for intervention leaving Taiwan out on a limb. There will be a world after US President George W. Bush leaves office. Whether it is one in which the American people and their government continue to pursue the values that this president -- once ironically thought to be ideology-free -- seek to promote, or one in which the Bush adventure is regarded as a regrettable aberration not to be repeated, is something that will have huge repercussions on Taiwan. That is something we might usefully think about. On the war itself, as Wittgenstein said: "when one cannot speak, one must be silent."
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS