In his speech at the Brookings Institution on July 13, titled "Some Reflections on My Time in Taiwan," former American Institute in Taiwan director Douglas Paal said that China's intent to restrain Taiwan lay behind its rapid military buildup. He also said that the main reason was then president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) 1995 visit to Cornell University, and his later definition of the relationship between Taiwan and China as "special state-to-state relations."
Paal seems to feel that the policies of the US and China regarding Taiwan, although articulated differently, are essentially the same in terms of maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait. The common meaning of these policies is "clear," he said.
With deep regret, I must conclude that Paal's assessment of cross-strait circumstances is far removed from reality.
Taiwan is constantly under the threat of invasion by China because of its pursuit of peace and democracy and its attempts to establish itself in the international arena. China has never renounced its ambition to attack Taiwan. This was the reality for decades before Lee's Cornell visit. Beijing's goal is to become a hegemonic power, supplanting the US in East Asia.
I find it regrettable that only six months after leaving Taiwan, Paal seems to have forgotten that China's rise is not founded on peace and democracy. Moreover, the alarming speed of its military buildup poses a threat not only to Taiwan but to the entire region. And in this age of dwindling energy resources, it is quite likely that conflicts will break out between China and its neighbors who have territorial disputes with Beijing, like Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and India. This is a scenario that I think most analysts would agree with.
The US Department of Defense's report regarding the Chinese military points out that since 1990, China's official defense budget has increased by more than 10 percent yearly, but the official budget is far less than Beijing's actual military spending. The speed with which China's military build-up is expanding is prompting even high-level officials in the White House to wonder which of China's neighbors are its enemies.
I disagree with Paal's mentioning the democratic US and the dictatorial China together against a background of military expansion and understanding of peace and democracy.
Paal also mentioned China's "Anti-Secession" Law, saying that it created maneuvering room for President Hu Jintao (
I also disagree with Paal's understanding that Taiwan's longtime wish to ink a free trade agreement (FTA) with the US as soon as possible stems from political considerations alone. Although China is growing stronger economically, the US is still the world's leading economy, and its domestic demand is the strongest of all the world's consumer markets. This one point makes one wonder whether export-oriented Taiwan's pursuit of an FTA with the US could be the result of political considerations alone.
Global economic and trade integration is an unstoppable trend, and FTAs are becoming par for the course. Politically isolated by China, Taiwan's economic and trade competitiveness are its only avenues of development.
Taiwan's democratic achievements and economic prosperity are built on universal values. Don't let China's saber rattling wipe out all the hard work the Taiwanese people have invested in their democracy and freedom.
Winston Dang is a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator and director of the DPP's Department of International Affairs.
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