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
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