After the end of World War II, countries around the world set about building collective security structures for joint defense, and this was the main purpose of the establishment of the UN.
Military alliances, defense partnerships and other platforms for cooperation between nations were very important during the Cold War to prevent and resist aggression from third countries. They cannot be neglected in the post-Cold War period, either.
An indication of the continued need for such alliances is a statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Informal Meeting of NATO foreign ministers in the Estonian capital, Tallinn, on April 23, emphasizing that the US had no intention of withdrawing tactical nuclear weapons deployed at its Air Force bases in Europe. European opinions about the US’ global strategic deployment may vary considerably, but, in consideration of collective security, no European nation would go to the extent of demanding that the US pull out of joint defense structures.
The Asia-Pacific region has no fewer potential flashpoints of instability than Europe and the threats to its security are no less complex. Even though nobody knows how regional balances of power in Northeast and Southeast Asia will be maintained in the future, or for how long, the only leader in the world who would say that he flat-out refuses US defense assistance is President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — and he made his point using a very decisive word: “Never.”
It must be borne in mind that Taiwan is not a member of the UN, so it is not qualified to join any international joint defense agreements. As things stand, it can only attach itself to the periphery of existing collective security mechanisms. That means that the only guarantee of Taiwan’s security is its unspoken military agreement with the US. Besides, at present the only country that poses a direct threat to Taiwan’s security is China.
That means that there can only be one explanation for Ma’s outright refusal of US military assistance: He has decided to bind Taiwan and China together in an unbreakably close relationship and to use his term in office to speed up the process of eventual unification.
In other words, when Ma said during an interview with CNN that he would never ask the US to fight for Taiwan, his true face was revealed for all to see. Ma’s interpretation of Taiwan’s status is clear.
While he is president, his strategy is not just to actively lean in China’s direction, but to bring forward the day when Taiwan will be a part of China. In Ma’s mind, what belongs to China belongs to China, and the US can mind its own business.
Although Ma has said time and again that he will never sell out Taiwan, his use of the word “never” in the CNN interview really gave the game away. No longer can one merely suspect that Taiwan’s sovereignty is in peril — it has now been proven beyond doubt that Ma is hell-bent on selling Taiwan down the river.
Steve Wang is an advisory committee member of Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS