A recent report in the online Japan Times on Jan. 4 said that a strategy was being drawn up between US and Japanese officials to continue to promote the two countries' common interests and "concerns" in the Taiwan Strait.
Last year, cooperation revolved around making Japanese airports and other facilities available to the US military in case of an emergency. This year, the focus is on sharing human resources.
These moves seem to illustrate Washington and Tokyo's view that a cross-strait confrontation is inevitable. This is a sharp contrast to Taipei's inaction.
Taipei appears to be ignoring the ultimatum clearly spelled out in China's Anti-Secession Law enacted nearly two years ago.
This law seems bent on making Taiwan choose one of two options: Surrender peacefully to China soon or face war.
Even if it wanted to, the Taiwanese government could not succumb to Beijing's pressure to become part of China without sparking a rebellion in Taiwan.
War seems inevitable, unless something can deter Beijing.
For Taiwan to continue a peaceful and free existence, the government must send a clear signal to Beijing that it is determined to keep Chinese forces at bay.
Admittedly, being prepared for an attack might not necessarily prevent a regime as determined as Beijing from invading. On the other hand, neglecting to maintain the nation's defense would be a clear invitation.
This neglect could, in fact, be the single factor most likely to lead to an attack from China.
The nation has failed to enhance its defenses despite the repeated urging from US President George W. Bush's administration over the past few years.
The crux of the problem is the fact that Washington actively discourages Taiwan's formal independence while simultaneously pushing it to arm itself against China. onetheless, Washington turns a blind eye to the glaring contradiction.
The same contradiction can be seen in Washington's repeated refusal to say how it would react if Taiwan declared formal independence.
But Washington's political game may be rounding on it. Many Taiwanese now yearn for formal independence, but at the same time are uninterested in arming the nation to the teeth. Many feel that the country's military defense could not stand a chance against China's People's Liberation Army and with mixed signals from the US, building up Taiwan's military is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
Partially to blame is the US State Department's routine snubbing of President Chen Shui-bian (
Not surprisingly, this sends the message that the US could jettison Taiwan at the drop of a hat.
Moreover, the argument that a clear US backing of formal independence for Taiwan would encourage Taipei to take the big step is a myth. The Taiwanese government could not possibly underestimate what's at stake for Taiwan in a cross-strait conflict, regardless of whether the US is involved or not.
That argument has over time helped Washington justify curbing Taiwan's democratization at the behest of Beijing.
Washington's decisiveness wouldn't increase the probability for conflicts in the Strait. In fact, it is more likely to decrease the risk of conflict. This is because the US would instill confidence in Taiwan, which would encourage Taipei to put more resources into military defense, thereby keeping Beijing at bay.
All of this, of course, hinges on how all the parties involved construe the maintenance of the "status quo."
But the "status quo" has been gradually eroded by a number of factors. China has enacted an "Anti-Secession" Law and aims an ever growing number of missiles at Taiwan.
This has not been balanced by continuing the nation's democratic constitutional reforms, which Washington, in a political dance with Beijing -- opposes.
For Taiwan, heeding Washington's prescription for its situation -- buy more weapons, make no constitutional changes -- will only lead to the gradual disappearance of the status quo and Taiwan will eventually be absorbed by China.
This is hardly a prospect that enthuses Taiwanese.
Taiwan's declining will to bolster its defense capabilities could become the most unsettling factor leading to a cross-strait conflict. Washington could change the situation by changing its signals.
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
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