When you are up to your ass in alligators, the original brainchild idea to drain the swamp no longer seems so brilliant. What does this old business maxim have to do with Taiwan's vibrant democracy and the US' strategic plans for it and the world? Please follow.
The US' founding principles support the ideal of democracy for itself and other nations. This is supposedly one of the reasons why the US entered Iraq -- to free that nation of its president Saddam Hussein.
Keep this ideal in mind as we look back over the past seven years and the long-term situation for Taiwan. For Americans who have lived in Taiwan for more than that time, the one droning and constant complaint and fear expressed by the US State Department has been that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) will announce the de facto reality that Taiwan is a viable democratic nation and as such belongs to no one. Supposedly, the announcement of this de facto reality will upset the delicate balance of the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait.
Meanwhile, everyone else has been tipping the scales this way and that. China has ignored the "status quo," and continues to pile up missiles aimed at Taiwan, but Taiwan is the only one to merit chastisement.
Perspective Point One: From Chen's first inauguration, the US State Department has let it be known that it does not want Chen to publicly acknowledge that Taiwan is a viable democratic nation. Has Chen done so? Has the sky fallen on Chicken Little? No, yet for seven years -- despite the fact that Chen has said nothing in this regard -- the US State Department has droned on and on like a broken record.
Perspective Point Two: What has happened in these past seven years? Well, the US went to war in Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and make the world safe for democracy. You can judge for yourself how successful that plan was and whether WMDs were found. China has continued to increase its military capabilities to threaten Taiwan's democracy. The US has sanctioned China's becoming the manufacturing center and polluter of the world and supports the anti-democratic dictatorship that governs it. The US dollar has fallen way behind the euro.
Perspective Point Three: Some will counter that the reason the US is worried about Chen's actions is because the US has a grand strategy for the world and democracy and any statements or actions by Chen would upset that plan or its timing.
This bears examination. Does the US have valid strategic plans? And what is their success ratio? For example, can anyone explain what the US' strategy was to protect New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina, and then during Hurricane Katrina, and finally after Hurricane Katrina? Were any of these successful?
Let us turn to Iraq. What was the basis for the US' grand strategy as it went in to root out WMD? While the initial military victory was swift, what was the grand strategy for peaceful rule after the initial military victory?
When you are up to your ass in alligators....
What is the US' grand strategy for engaging China? China's military is growing more powerful. The US is being deluged with poisonous, defective products from the Chinese manufacturing monster the US created. The US is greatly in debt to China. China has not really helped the US vis-a-vis North Korea. China continues to violate human rights and in many ways dictate US foreign policy. Is this plan working?
The record of the US' grand strategy is certainly dubious, which raises further questions. Do plans actually exist or is the State Department flying by the seat of its pants? If there are plans, how well thought out are they? Do they consist of someone saying, "Hey, I got an idea, let's try this and if it doesn't work we can still try to force the round pegs into square holes to make it work because we are the US."
Let's get more specific and closer to home. After World War II, the US obviously did not have a clear strategic plan for Taiwan. The San Francisco Treaty left everything vague and ambiguous. Fair enough, there were many unsolved questions after the war.
But then, more than 20 years later, came the Shanghai Communique, for which president Richard Nixon and secretary of state Henry Kissinger betrayed Taiwan in their strategic plans to counter the Soviet Union. Fortunately the protests of the rest of the State Department and Congress kept Taiwan from being completely sold out -- by generating the Taiwan Relations Act.
Subsequent actions by the US have watered down and misapplied the words of the Shanghai Communique. President Jimmy Carter switched the US embassy from Taipei to Beijing with little more than a day's notice.
Such a track record speaks volumes. So, if someone said that the US has a grand strategy for Taiwan and its democracy, I would say: "Prove it."
And follow that with "On what basis should I have confidence in any suggested strategy of the US?"
And certainly follow that up with the observation that asking the president of a democratic country whose population is larger than 75 percent of the countries in the UN should sit quietly in a corner because his words or actions will upset the US' grand strategy is ludicrous.
Some will counter that the US State Department does not like surprises from Chen.
Fair enough, but not liking surprises is a two-way street. The US' treatment of Taiwan has not simply been a long series of surprises: It has been interlaced with betrayals, too. If the US does not want surprises, it should practice what it preaches.
Finally, has the US ever communicated its grand strategy for Taiwan (if it has one) to Taiwan? Not on your life. Can anyone indicate what the US' strategic plan is, and why Taiwan should have confidence in it?
Perspective Point Four: China -- the hegemonic Asian bully developed and fostered by the US and others in their eagerness to outsource manufacturing, quality and pollution -- has stated that it would declare war on Taiwan if it declares independence.
The fact that China would make such a claim and do so with impunity indicates that there already exist some secret concessions or agreements between the US and China, similar to those signed by Kissinger and only finally revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request.
Second, who created this hegemonic monster? And who allowed this monster to have such freedom of expression while the leader of democratic Taiwan cannot speak the truth and is treated like some undesirable relative? Democratic Taiwan's president is only allowed to use the servant's entrance when passing through the US.
In trying to solve one problem, the US State Department has created a host of others.
If the US thinks it can solve the next problem in Asia by selling out Taiwan to the Middle Kingdom of Pollution and Poison, it will have dug a much bigger hole for itself to climb out of than it can ever have imagined.
Which brings us back to where we began. Does the US really have a valid strategy for Taiwan's democracy? Is the US a supporter of democracy? Judge for yourself.
The collateral damage created by the US' strategies (or lack of them) continues to mount and there seems to be no one at the State Department with any grasp of the mentality and manipulativeness of the rulers of China. Or if there is, no one is listening to him.
Instead, the State Department's only creative solution is to drone on about the danger of Chen saying the unthinkable and even daring to ask that Taiwan's 23 million be represented in the UN.
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
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