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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS