Just before Christmas, US President Donald Trump’s administration released its first National Security Strategy (NSS), a congressionally mandated document required under the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act — that outlines the US government’s appraisal of its national security interests, the global security environment, challenges to US interests and policies and tools for securing such interests.
For Taiwan, three aspects are important: First, the specific mention of Taiwan in the document and the reference to the specific commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). Second, the characterization of China as a challenge to US power, which is forcing the US to rethink the policies of the past two decades. Third, the outline of the new Indo-Pacific policy as the new framework for US policies toward the region.
On the first point: The NSS for the first time specifically refers to Taiwan and states: “We will maintain our strong ties with Taiwan in accordance with our ‘one China’ policy, including our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide for Taiwan’s legitimate defense needs and deter coercion.”
The reference to “our ‘one China’” policy is a clear statement that the US does not accept the “one China” principle touted by Beijing, while the emphasis on the US commitments under the TRA (to provide for Taiwan’s defense needs and deter coercion) are an unambiguous signal that the US would come to Taiwan’s defense if China decides to attack or coerce Taiwan.
On the second point: The NSS describes China as “challenging American power, influence and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.”
According to the report, this strategic competition would “require the United States to rethink the policies of the past two decades — policies based on the assumption that engagement with rivals and their inclusion in international institutions and global commerce would turn them into benign actors and trustworthy partners. For the most part, this premise turned out to be false.”
Thus, while previous US administrations emphasized engagement and cooperation, the Trump administration is emphasizing that China’s expansionist moves and mercantilism are proving a threat not only to US interests, but also to peace and stability in the region.
Based on this, one could thus expect a firmer US pushback against China’s expansionism
On the third point: The NSS is the first attempt by the US administration to give substance to the concept of the Indo-Pacific strategy, first mentioned by Trump in a speech to the APEC Forum in Da Nang, Vietnam, in November last year.
The Indo-Pacific strategy has been referred to as a diamond-shaped strategy, encompassing Japan in the north, the US in the east, India in the west and Australia in the south.
The NSS specifically states that: “We will seek to increase quadrilateral cooperation with Japan, Australia and India,” but also mentions ASEAN and APEC as “centerpieces of the Indo-Pacific’s regional architecture and platforms for promoting an order based on freedom.”
For Taiwan, it is important to realize that it is at the heart of this Indo-Pacific diamond and is therefore of strategic importance.
It remains to be seen how the Trump administration will implement its NSS and its new Indo-Pacific strategy.
However, it is clear that for Taiwan it creates opportunities to strengthen its international position and opens the door for fresh thinking, new policies and for the nation to build alliances that help induce China to accommodate a free and democratic Taiwan.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat and the former editor of Taiwan Communique. He teaches “History of Taiwan” at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS