Unsurprisingly, the comments made by US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage that Taiwan was "probably the biggest landmine" in US-China relations as well as "the US is not required to defend Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act" stirred up domestic finger-pointing in Taipei.
When the US sneezes, Taiwan catches a cold. We have seen this pattern repeated over the past year. Partisan calculations aside, can Taiwan's leaders -- from both camps -- ?learn lessons and re-examine their strategy toward the new US-Taiwan-China relationship?
The Armitage quote was made Dec. 10 -- on the eve of Taiwan's legislative elections. The PBS network chose to run the interview more than ten days after the pan-blue camp secured a majority. Washington must have been relieved that the pro-new-constitution, pro-name-rectification pan-green forces failed to win the campaign. There is no need for Washington to intentionally sabotage the Chen Shui-bian (
Armitage was simply explaining an old nuance in the TRA and the Three Communiques, and not a new policy change. But no one can deny the incremental adjustment in the US tendency to replace its old strategy of "ambiguity" with a clearer identification of what can and cannot be done.
Washington's move to draw a clear "red line" has been closely associated with a growing misperception of Taiwan's status and a lack of trust in Chen's next step regarding constitutional reforms and name change.
Taipei's lack of determination to strengthen its self-defense capability in the face of a potential military crisis originates from China's reckless and irrational miscalculation.
The US conviction is that all these factors would drag it into an unnecessary military conflict with China, which the Bush administration does not want and would be unable to solve.
Therefore, Armitage's comments displayed a unified Bush administration attitude to send clear messages to Chen's government, the pan-blue camp and Beijing.
Washington's warning to Chen is simply "don't take the US for granted." There is indeed a presumption in Taiwan -- advocated mostly by Taiwan's independence proponents -- that Taiwan can be provocative to China, and the US will bail Taiwan out.
Despite the differences between Chen and former President Lee Teng-hui (
Such a notion that "the US will come to our aid anyway" has led to even more worrisome behavior by the pan-blue force's mindless and irrational boycott of the 6-million dollar purchase of eight diesel submarines, six Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile defense batteries and 12 P-3C maritime patrol aircraft.
In keeping with the TRA, the US should provide Taiwan with weapons sufficient for its defense to deter military action, but there is a difference between "deter" and "defend." Without showing any will to defend itself, how can Taiwan count only on the US' assistance?
To Beijing, it is not a good time to take advantage of US policy maker's criticisms of Taiwan's leader, either. The alleged move to enact the so-called "anti-secession law" is a straight manifestation of unilaterally changing the status quo of Taiwan Strait.
As one of the actors, China should not portray itself as both arbitrator and law-enforcer. The move is not conducive to a peaceful and stable cross-strait dialogue.
Liu Kuan-teh is Taipei-based political commentator.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS