During US President Barack Obama’s seven-day visit to Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Philippines, the issue of security cooperation was at the fore. As other East Asian countries are worried about China copying what Russia is doing in Ukraine, Obama’s trip through the “first island chain” sent a message to US allies in the Asia-Pacific region that restored some faith in Washington’s rebalancing policy.
Although Obama only passed over the nation’s airspace, it is safe to say that unless Taiwan plans to surrender to China and resist Washington, the US’ regional strengthening of military cooperation is a positive thing for stability and security in the Taiwan Strait.
Obama sent signals that Taiwan must attend to, although considering the actions of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government, these signals might have a negative impact on the nation. They include Obama’s support for Japan strengthening its right to self-defense and US support for the Philippines’ filing for international arbitration to handle territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
While Obama disapproved of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sending a ritual offering to the Yasukuni Shrine, the US does not associate that with militarism. The US believes that Japan is a peaceful country and it is central to Washington developing bilateral alliances in a multipolar Asia-Pacific region.
However, the Ma administration is in accord with China’s anti-Japanese sentiment, which interprets Japan’s normalization as a move toward restoring militarism. This is not only out of touch with reality, but also contrary to the US’ policy of encouraging allies to upgrade their military strength and is unhelpful to national interests or the improvement of Taipei-Tokyo relations.
Another potential problem is linked to US support for the Philippines filing for international arbitration. In late March, the Philippines requested that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, review whether China’s “nine-dash line” — which China uses for its territorial claims in the South China Sea — is in line with international law. The request has been accepted and Obama applauded the move for being in sync with Washington’s desire that territorial disputes in the area be handled in a peaceful manner and in line with international law.
Developments suggest it is possible that China’s nine-dash line will be ruled a violation of international law. Because the Ma administration has proposed a “U-shaped line” — which is extremely similar to the nine-dash line — for dealing with territorial disputes in the area, the US has said that Taiwan should form a claim different to China’s. However, the Ma administration, insisting that cross-strait relations be conducted under the concept of “one country, two areas” (一國兩區), has rejected this suggestion.
If the nine-dash line is ruled a violation of international law, then the U-shaped line will also be negated. Since Taiwan is unable to take part in negotiations on territorial disputes in the South China Sea, if the nation’s claim is judged to be illegal and it is unable to come up with a ( claim) that is in line with international law, then the entire basis for the claim to Itu Aba Island (Taiping Island, 太平島) the largest of the disputed Spratly Islands, also known as the Nansha Islands (南沙群島), will cease to exist.
Taiwan should capitalize on the US government’s rebalancing policy and propose a stance on territorial disputes in the South China Sea different to that of China’s nine-dash line. It is fine to disputes claims to Itu Aba Island, but if the nation loses the island, national interests will be severely hurt.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
Translated by Drew Cameron
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS