Behind the controversial US$5.85 billion US arms sale to Taiwan announced last month rages a heated argument over whether the US should abandon the country to be absorbed by China or should defend it from Chinese conquest.
The sale provides Taiwan with new radar, weapons and structural improvements for its current fleet of 145 F-16A/B aircraft plus a five-year extension of pilot training at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona and a supply of spare parts. Left open was the possibility of selling advanced F-16C/Ds later.
An unnamed US Department of State official in a press briefing asserted that the sale reflected “the longstanding bipartisan commitment in the United States to the security of Taiwan.” He said it was part of efforts by US President Barack Obama’s administration to strengthen ties with Taiwan in trade, people exchanges and energy research.
Chinese officials immediately objected to the sale and said China would retaliate by reducing military exchanges with the US. China claims Taiwan, to which Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) forces fled after their defeat in the Chinese Civil War in 1949, is an integral part of China and “unification” is a core national interest.
A large majority of the people in Taiwan, however, have shown in polls that they prefer to remain separate from China. A mid-level Taiwanese government official, whose grandparents had come from China in 1949, was asked if she considered herself Chinese or Taiwanese.
“I am Chinese by culture,” she said, “but Taiwan is my home.”
Americans who say the Taiwan issue is the most likely cause of war — potentially nuclear war — between the US and China argue that Washington should accommodate Beijing to preclude that war. They say the US should recognize China as a major power.
A former US diplomat, Charles Freeman, advocates accommodation: “For Americans, the Taiwan issue presents an unwelcome choice between potential long-term military antagonism with China and the perpetuation, despite rapid cross-Strait economic and social integration, of Taiwan’s de facto political separation from the mainland.”
Now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, Freeman, who speaks fluent Chinese, deplores US support for Taiwan: “Given the huge stakes for the United States in our strategic interaction with China, this choice might well strike someone looking afresh at the situation as oddly misguided.”
Those who argue for defending Taiwan point to the Taiwan Relations Act, a law adopted by the US Congress in 1979 to protest then-US president Jimmy Carter’s decision to switch US diplomatic relations from Taipei to Beijing. It provides for a US commitment to Taiwan just short of ironclad.
Those supporting Taiwan say the US would be morally wrong to abandon the democracy that Taiwan has become. They say other nations in Asia, notably Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand, which have security treaties with Washington, would lose confidence in the US.
Geographically, Taiwan sits astride the northern entrance to the South China Sea through which more shipping passes each year than through the Panama and Suez canals combined. Control of Taiwan would give China a potential check over that vital waterway.
Another former diplomat, Alan Romberg, of the Stimson Center think tank in Washington, wrote in a paper that Taiwan’s security is important to the US for at least four reasons:
‧ A long history of US support for Taiwan’s security.
“One does not readily turn away from that,” he said.
‧ Democracy and economic progress favor “protecting the island against forced surrender to the Mainland [sic] rather than abandoning it.”
‧ Chinese use of military force “would be destabilizing and harmful to American political, economic and security concerns.” Deterring that would be “very much a US strategic interest.”
‧ Refusing to stand up to force would set off tremors throughout Asia and would raise doubts about US nuclear deterrence and might cause Tokyo, Seoul or Taipei to develop nuclear weapons.
While the US would accept an agreement on Taiwan-China relations that was negotiated peacefully, US economic stakes in Taiwan are high. Trade with China is ballooning, but that with Taiwan is respectable for a nation of 23 million people.
Long ago, former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain sought to appease Adolf Hitler by declining to oppose his invasion of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain said the British need not enter a war “because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.”
To which Winston Churchill was reported to have muttered: “The government had to choose between shame and war. They chose shame and they will get war.”
Richard Halloran is a commentator based in Hawaii.
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