Last week, US Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Randall Schriver underlined Washington’s commitment to supply Taiwan’s security needs.
In a welcome speech for Taipei, Schriver stressed Taiwan’s importance as a partner in promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific.
He branded China, which has stepped up military maneuvers toward Taiwan, as the “most aggressive” player in the Taiwan Strait and urged Beijing to renounce its use of force.
He would not discuss future US plans in the Taiwan Strait when pushed by reporters and did not deviate from Washington’s longstanding policy of strategic ambiguity.
However, flexibility and greater latitude were the buzzwords of his talk, suggesting more inventive initiatives to strengthen ties with Taipei in the years to come.
This is no surprise given Schriver’s longstanding support for Taiwan.
Schriver in March 2016 told an audience in Washington that it was one of his “pet issues” to get presidential-level dialogue between the US and Taiwan.
Since joining the administration of US President Donald Trump at the beginning of the year, Schriver has been joined by other appointees with strong Taiwan leanings, most notably Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton.
In an article Bolton wrote a year prior to his appointment, he strongly urged a rethink of the US’ “one China” policy and even floated the idea of “stationing military personnel and assets” on Taiwan.
With these men in the administration it is no wonder that on a visit to Taipei, Alex Wong (黃之瀚), deputy assistant secretary at the US Department of State’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, assured President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) that US support for Taiwan had never been stronger.
This assurance would be all the more credible if it were not for the man who sits in the White House. Trump has been hugely inconsistent on Taiwan.
As president-elect he had a groundbreaking telephone conversation with Tsai only to ring alarm bells weeks later with his suggestion that the US might use the nation as a bargaining chip.
In a Fox News interview in December last year, Trump said: “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘one China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”
This sort of transactional policymaking, which is typical of Trump’s thinking, should worry Taiwan. It is an approach that is devoid of values and brings into question the US’ commitment to security assurances.
In the past few weeks, the world has seen renewed questioning of NATO from Trump, who has also been cozying up to the alliance’s greatest adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In East Asia the picture is strikingly similar.
Despite his administration branding Beijing a strategic competitor and some fiery rhetoric from Trump himself, Trump has heaped praise on Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
Likewise, while the US defense budget rises, there have been calls from Trump for South Korea and Japan to bear a greater burden for their own security.
Trump quickly canceled the Trans-Pacific Partnership, aimed at countering Beijing’s increasing dominance in the region and agreed to stop joint military exercises with ally South Korea in order to cut a deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Shared liberal democratic values and traditional security commitments mean little to Trump “the dealmaker,” which should worry Taipei, despite the warm words from administration officials.
Such officials will have to contend with Trump and his isolationist “America first” agenda.
Meanwhile, so long as the White House gives the impression it will not spend the US’ blood and treasure in far-off lands, observers in Beijing might become increasingly emboldened.
Gray Sergeant is a postgraduate student in Chinese politics at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies and also works in human rights advocacy.
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