There has been an increased focus on how the triangular relationship between Taiwan, China and the US will develop after president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) takes office on May 20. Although warming cross-strait relations may lead to positive developments for the economy and an opportunity for more cultural exchange, there may also be spillover effects with regard to security across the Taiwan Strait, US arms sales to Taiwan and the US’ Asia-Pacific security policy.
On the eve of Taiwan’s presidential election, the US emphasized its “one China” policy and issued increasingly authoritative statements on the US’ unequivocal opposition to Taiwan holding a referendum on applying for UN membership.
But at the same time, the US strengthened its resolve in enforcing the security of the Taiwan Strait through actions such as sending the Japan-based USS Kitty Hawk carrier to the Taiwan Strait on March 17. On March 21, the US not only officially confirmed the Kitty Hawk’s movement, but also said that the USS Nimitz performed naval exercises in a region near the Taiwan Strait. Admiral Timothy Keating of the US Pacific Command said that these actions were meant as a warning against any inappropriate military maneuvers. This shows that the US was not only taking preventive military action with regard to Taiwan, but that Washington is also concerned about China’s uncertain nature. There was a strategic element to the display of military might, which aimed at reminding the two sides of the Strait to exercise self-restraint.
Although there was no instability in the Taiwan Strait after the presidential election, the US still has not withdrawn its carrier battle group from the area. According to an April 17 report in the Washington Times, the Kitty Hawk and the Nimitz will stay put until after May 20 to respond to any situations that could affect the security of the Taiwan Strait.
In addition, American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young participated in the Yushan military exercise on April 22, triggering speculation on the significance of his presence. While he was ostensibly an observer, it is possible that the exercise was meant to simulate how US officials would be protected and evacuated in case of war. These events show that expectations for cross-strait relations and security across the Taiwan Strait do not necessarily match the recently popular “economic peace theory.”
The nature and hopes of the “economic peace theory” both comply with and contradict the US’ “grand strategy” toward Asia. It is also closely related to the rise of China and its effect on Asian regional security and the structure of global power allocation. On the surface, China appears to have chosen a peaceful and gradual strategy for its rise. For example, in January, Beijing published its China Modernization Report in which it mentioned its “peace dove” strategy. Its purpose is allegedly to market the diplomatic strategy for its peaceful rise, but China also seeks to prevent other countries from interfering with what it sees as its “internal affairs.”
Chinese military reports say that when vice president-elect Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) met during the Boao forum, Hu had recently inspected the navy’s Nanhai fleet and called for an all-out effort to increase combat readiness and a strengthening of the military. For its part, the US has kept the two carrier battle groups in the Taiwan Strait region on standby. Washington doesn’t say whether it is out of concern over internal developments in Taiwan, a preventative safeguard against any unusual movements from China, or to react to any action Beijing might take in response to the effect of the problems in Tibet on the Olympic Games. Neither the US nor China has made their intentions clear.
The development of cross-strait relations hinges on whether economic efforts can lead to gradual political results. With Taiwan placing its hopes on the “economic peace theory,” it remains to be seen whether there will be political costs and in what direction the situation will develop. There are many factors that will determine the direction of Taiwan’s future and the security of the Asia-Pacific region. Perhaps this is the particular nature of the competitive yet cooperative relationship that challenges Taiwan, China and the US.
Soong Hseik-wen is the director of the Graduate Institute of Strategy and International Affairs at National Chung Cheng University. Wang Jyh-perng is a student at the institute.
TRANSLATED BY JAMES CHEN
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS