When asked during a television interview what he thought the "landmines" were in terms of US-China relations, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage replied, "Taiwan," adding that, "Taiwan is probably the biggest landmine." So, will the US actually come to the defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack by China? To this, Armitage's answer was that the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA,
It is difficult to find fault in what he actually said here, but what is clear from all this is first that the US is concerned about the rise of China; secondly, that a degree of conflict has arisen between the US and China; and third, that the issue of a potential "landmine" exploding is a crucial point.
In other words, the US is well aware of the threat posed by the rise of China, otherwise there would be no tension between them. At most, Taiwan is the "biggest" possible cause of trouble flaring.
As a result, the US' true focus is not the Taiwan question but the threat of China, and Taiwan is merely a landmine placed between the two giants. It is only when the situation is looked at in this light that one can understand the US standpoint on the Taiwan question, the TRA and US-China-Taiwan relations.
The TRA was passed in both houses of the US Congress, and declares that "peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States," and that to have "boycotts and embargoes" against Taiwan are "a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area," and are therefore "of grave concern to the United States."
Therefore, if the US comes to the defense of Taiwan, it will be doing so out of consideration of its own national interest.
Naturally, America has the choice of not defending Taiwan, should it relinquish its interests in the West Pacific region. To put it more clearly, if the US sells the "Taiwan landmine" down the river, and scraps the TRA, they will be losing the Western Pacific Region as a sphere of influence. This will be tantamount to making the same errors they committed 50 years ago, and creating a monster that they cannot control.
In May 1946, Chiang Kai-shek's (
Here, he could have struck a decisive blow against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but called a ceasefire under pressure from US General George Marshall.
This gave the communists time to rest and regroup, and three years later communist China became a reality.
With a little assistance from China, the Soviet Union was able to extend into Asia, in addition to the influence it had in Europe and China itself. Also, Kim Il-sung (
Even today North Korea presents a major challenge to the US: they should have learned their lesson the first time around. America's mistakes of half a century ago have created the crisis that exists between China and Taiwan. Will the US make a similar mistake again? America has already lost friends in Europe -- is the same thing going to happen in Asia as well? This is not just something for the White House to think about: Congress must take note, too.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly Magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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