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
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS