The political leaders of Taiwan, both government and opposition, are in serious danger of misreading or ignoring the increasingly stiff warning signals coming from Washington.
In its bluntest form, the US message is: Taiwan needs to do more to prepare for its own defense against a potential attack from China rather than rely largely on the US for its security. If it doesn't, the US may be less obligated to come to Taiwan's rescue.
Publicly, that caution has been delivered by officials of the American Institute in Taiwan, by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization in Washington with ties to President George W. Bush's administration, and by the American Enterprise Institute, a more centrist think tank.
Privately, US officials said that advice had been delivered from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, by retired senior US military officers visiting Taiwan, and by US colonels who slip into Taiwan in mufti so as not to offend China as they confer with Taiwanese officers.
Said one senior officer: "Some of the investments that Taiwan would like to make are not optimized for the defense of Taiwan."
This widening rift between Washington and Taiwan, over which China claims sovereignty, comes just as Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Although Hu has proclaimed that China seeks to take over Taiwan by peaceable means, his government has repeatedly threatened to use military force if Taiwan declares formal independence.
The main point of contention between Washington and Taipei is a package of weapons offered by the US that includes eight diesel-electric submarines, six Patriot anti-missile batteries, 12 P-3C maritime-patrol aircraft, and other items worth US$15 billion.
The Bush administration presented that package in April 2001, but the proposal has languished in Taipei ever since. President Chen Shui-bian (
The KMT has contended that some of the weapons aren't needed or they are too expensive or they aren't modern enough. Underneath it all, the KMT appears to relish opposing Chen and the DPP.
In addition, leaders of the KMT have sought to undercut Chen by visiting Beijing, where they were received like potentates of old who had journeyed from the provinces to the capital to pay tribute to the emperor.
American officers point to a steady decline in Taiwan's military spending, reductions in conscription, and a failure to adhere to high standards of training and readiness.
Command and control of joint operations was said to be particularly weak.
Lastly, recent polls have brought into question the will of the Taiwanese to resist political, economic, and perhaps military domination by China. Even so, those same polls show that a large majority of the people of Taiwan prefer to stay separate from China, even if that means remaining in a limbo where only 26 nations have formal diplomatic relations with Taipei.
Bush sought to set a firm policy on Taiwan shortly after he came to office in 2001, saying that the US would do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan.
The arms package was intended to underscore that pledge. After the terrorist assaults of Sept. 11, however, the administration toned down its rhetoric on Taiwan as it sought to enlist China in the war against terror.
Further, the administration admonished Chen to moderate his drive toward Taiwan's formal independence, the basic platform of his party.
Now, the pendulum has swung back a little as the Bush administration has pressed Taiwan to complete the purchase of the weapons they requested in 2001. A Pentagon report last month noted that the military balance between China and Taiwan "appears to be shifting toward Beijing as a result" of China's economic growth, diplomatic leverage, and improved military capabilities.
The report concluded that China's military modernization "has increased the need for countermeasures that would enable Taiwan to avoid being quickly overwhelmed."
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
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