US president-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday said that he would not rule out military force to “take back” the Panama Canal or to take over Greenland, adding that sovereign control over those two areas is of the utmost importance to US national security.
Trump has made such statements before. He openly expressed his interest in Greenland and Panama on several occasions during his first term.
Simply put, Greenland’s strategic value to the US can be found in laying along the shortest flight paths between Europe and North America, and being the absolute best location for the US military’s deployment of ballistic missile early warning and interception systems — some of which are already deployed there. The importance of the Panama Canal is far more evident, including for naval vessels. Every day, several US Navy vessels rely on the canal to cut down on time traversing between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
As for Taiwan’s location, it possesses advantages similar to Greenland and the Panama Canal. With the Leshan radar station, we can see the airspace situation stretching from the Korean Peninsula in the north, down to the furthest islands of the South China Sea, as well as deep into inland China.
Such information is extremely important for the US’ operations of intercontinental ballistic early warning systems and interception missions in the Indo-Pacific region.
Moreover, a report by the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies in October showed that, based on trade data, about one-fifth of the world’s trade passed through the Taiwan Strait. In other words, were the Strait to come under Chinese Communist Party (CCP) control, it would be tantamount to putting a chokehold on large trading powers, such as the US and Japan.
When comparing Greenland and the Panama Canal with Taiwan, it goes without saying that if Trump is insistent on his ideas for the former, then he simply cannot sit back and watch the CCP take control of Taiwan.
Huang Wei-ping works in public service and has a master’s degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Massachusetts.
Translated by Tim Smith
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
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
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS