Recent statements by US Senator Dianne Feinstein about Taiwan and its relations with China caused quite a stir.
The statement that attracted most attention was a remark she made during a Senate hearing with US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on June 16, indicating that during a recent trip to China, leaders in Beijing had offered to “redeploy back” some of their military forces, including missiles, opposite Taiwan, in return for Washington not selling arms to Taipei.
The statement later turned out to be a dud. An aide explained that she was referring to an offer that was made in the past and was no longer on the table, while the next day US Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, when asked about the statement, denied that China had made any specific proposals along the lines indicated by Feinstein.
However, another statement by Feinstein actually gives more reason for concern. In a June 6 interview with the Wall Street Journal, she said of the sale of US$6.4 billion worth of arms to Taiwan, announced by the administration of US President Barack Obama in January: “I believe that’s a mistake on our part.”
It is difficult to understand why Feinstein feels that the arms sale is a mistake on the part of the US. It is a clear response to China’s continuing military buildup across the Taiwan Strait, including the ongoing deployment of missiles aimed at Taiwan. China has indicated in no uncertain terms that this buildup is designed to coerce Taiwan into reunification.
If there is a “mistake,” it is on China’s part: The leaders in Beijing are apparently underestimating and misjudging US resolve to help defend Taiwan. This is not only the political resolve enunciated by successive US administrations, but is also enshrined in US law — the Taiwan Relations Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1979.
Perhaps Feinstein feels that the US should not be engaged in an “arms race” across the Taiwan Strait or that it should work toward “demilitarization” in the area. However, history shows that unilateral reductions in arms and defense capability actually invite aggression. It takes two to tango, and China would have to show a clear willingness to reduce its arms buildup and missile arsenal arrayed against Taiwan for demilitarization to work.
It is a useful exercise to remind ourselves of other past examples in which an ill considered idea led to aggression and even war. World War II was precipitated when France, Britain and the US looked the other way as Nazi Germany laid claim to neighboring Sudetenland and used it as an excuse to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland.
In 1950, the Korean War — a war that I fought in — came about after (though not necessarily directly because of) former US secretary of state Dean Acheson left South Korea out of his “Aleutians speech” detailing the US defense perimeter in the Western Pacific. In 1991, a statement by a US official to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein that “Kuwait is not important to the United States” is said to have contributed to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
The message should be clear: If the US want a peaceful resolution of cross-strait conflict, it needs to stand by Taiwan, not only militarily, but also politically and economically. At the same time, the US needs to impress on China in no uncertain terms that its continuing military buildup is wrongheaded and a mistake on Beijing’s part.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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