In "Wake up to the Chinese threat" (The Hill, June 28), US Representative Dana Rohrabacher wrote: "It is becoming clear that the future status of Taiwan is the key to US interests in Asia. Like a keystone holding an arch in place, without Taiwan our friends in Seoul, Tokyo and Manila would quickly get sucked into the Beijing vortex ... Further, the Chinese continue to upgrade their missile systems, which now include the extended-range DF-31A, which can target most of the world, including the continental US."
Aside from being a reassuring statement that ties the future status of Taiwan to US national security, this is the antithesis of recent talk of abandoning Taiwan as raised by a handful of US-based commentators who are either pro-Beijing or else have grown exasperated by Taiwan's reluctance to arm itself adequately.
However, as long as there exist discourses premised on Taiwan being a US burden, it shouldn't be overly provocative to pose the question: What could be in store for Taiwan in case it falls into Beijing's grip? A glimpse to a probable answer can be found in this year's Pentagon report to the US Congress, titled Military Power of the People's Republic of China, 2006.
Inside, there is an intriguing sentence added anew -- as versus last year's edition -- to a highlighted section with the subject title of "Factors of Deterrence."
Specifically, "an insurgency against the occupation could tie up substantial forces for years" is listed as one of the potential factors that might discourage Beijing from engaging in a reckless military adventure against Taiwan. It is clear that, should there be any multi-year insurgency against a Chinese occupation, immediately coming to one's mind would be a scenario not unlike the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Hence, what the Pentagon ostensibly intended as a means to pile up more weight to its impediment against Chinese aggression should function no less than a stern warning to the Taiwanese. Besides, there could be more to this Pentagon statement. In order for the insurgency to last years and to tie up substantial forces at the same time, it inevitably requires massive outside help. And the most likely sources are the US, as the report is implying without much subtlety, and possibly Japan.
The only purpose for the US and Japan to intervene in the insurgency would be to prevent China from ever being able to utilize a secured Taiwan as a springboard for power projection into the Pacific. But this vital strategic consideration, when reinforced with what's being affirmed by Rohra-bacher's aforementioned statement, also attests to the fallacy of the supposition that a peaceful resolution will evolve from non-violent unification between Taiwan and China and makes this last notion nothing but a delusion pervasive among Taiwan's pan-blue voters.
Regardless, it's the Taiwanese people's lives that are at stake here. It's simply too important a subject to be left to even the good intentions of Washington or Tokyo, much less Beijing and the pan-blues. Instead, the entire Taiwanese populace should face up to the fact that misery associated with insurgency lasting for years would not discriminate based on political hue.
Every Taiwanese, irrespective of political persuasion, should heed this clarion though succinct call sounded by the US Pentagon, and demand that the Taiwanese government, especially the legislators, halt any practice of duplicitously toying with Taiwan's future, be it the continuing blockage of the special arms bill or the dilution of sovereignty on account of political expediency.
Only by passionately pursuing the goal of a secure and
sovereign Taiwan can the Taiwanese preclude the possibility that one day their children would wander the streets of a Taipei that resembles Beirut in the 1980s.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS