Tag: taiwan

How Taiwan Became an Issue

Given that official Washington seems increasingly determined to fight Beijing over Taiwan, concerned Americans are right to wonder: how did the question of Taiwan come to be of such purported importance to these global powers?

While several closer islands, such as the Penghu (or the Pescadores as they are now known), were incorporated into the Chinese polity during the period of Ming blue water exploration in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Formosa (or Taiwan as it came to be known) never was.

After shuttering its large scale naval activities in the mid-fifteenth century, the Ming were thereafter largely content to let the rival trading companies of the Portuguese and Dutch quarrel for influence on Formosa, where trade revolved around tea and camphor.

In an odd bit of history repeating itself, the island first became a central focus of a ruling mainland Chinese regime as a result of a civil war that needed concluding: displaced by the invading Manchurian forces (the eventual Qing), in 1661 what remained of the Han, Ming ruling clique retreated to Formosa. It was following their ultimate defeat in 1683 that Formosa started to become ethically and administratively integrated into China (a process completed around a century later).

Despite its import as a trading hub in the centuries thereafter, when the Japanese took possession of Formosa at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), per the terms of the Treaty Shimonoseki (1885), the island’s new rulers found a society, economy, and polity virtually untouched by modernity.

And while initially brutal, putting down an anti-Japanese insurgency of emigre Han Chinese and native Taiwanese, the Japanese colonial administration of the island, which lasted until the end of World War II, would see the island transformed into an educated, urbanized, and rationalized society with living standards far higher than on the mainland.

Despite the increasing gap, most Taiwanese, whose cultural links with the mainland were still strong, were open to rejoining mainland China when the war finally ended—although it is worth noting that this willingness proved short-lived, the Kuomintang (KMT) regime needing to viciously suppress a mass uprising against its terrible misrule in 1947.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at whose feet a great deal of blame for a whole host of problems may be laid, also laid the foundation stone for misadventure in dealing with China, including Taiwan.

Indeed, while there was a reasonable possibility that Taiwan could have been its own independent country at the end of the Second World War, it was FDR and his successor, Harry Truman, who ensured this would not happen.

Ignoring the wisdom of multiple of his predecessors, who had refused to get involved either in internal Chinese squabbles or its feuds with neighboring Japan, FDR began supporting the KMT regime of Chiang Kai-Shek.

Keep reading

Would the President Be in Charge During a War in Taiwan?

With 5 months remaining until the November elections, candidates Joe Biden and Donald Trump have, over the last few months, staked out positions on key issues on the geopolitical stage. One of the more noteworthy examples was Trump’s acquiescent opinion given to reporters about how Congressional Republicans could get behind the controversial military aid package passed in May.

Another flashpoint was Joe Biden’s recent comments on whether the United States would militarily intervene if China launched an attack against Taiwan.

In an interview with TIME, Biden gave his best shot at “clarifying” his position on the use of American bodies, ships, and planes to defend Taiwan

“It would depend on the circumstances. You know, by the way, I’ve made clear to Xi Jinping that we agree with—we signed on to previous presidents going way back—to the policy of, that, it is we are not seeking independence for Taiwan nor will we, in fact, not defend Taiwan if they if, if China unilaterally tries to change the status. And so we’re continuing to supply capacity. And, and we’ve been in consultation with our allies in the region,” said the President.

When asked to re-clarify if he is not ruling out US troops being deployed, he responded that he was “not ruling out using US military force,” adding that there “is a distinction between deploying on the ground, air power and naval power, etc.”

It’s no secret that Biden has difficulty communicating as exhibited by the constant mistakes and loss of thought train in the TIME interview, but this section underlines the consequences of that as regards a conflict that would take place over 8,000 miles away and 12 hours from Washington.

It’s a conflict where Washington’s opponent sits one-eightieth of that distance away from their target, and where POTUS has moments to decide how to respond to a conflict that’s predicted to be decided itself in just moments.

Keep reading

Washington Approves $360 Million Arms Sale to Taiwan

The State Department said on Tuesday that it has green-lit a $360 million arms sale to Taipei, including hundreds of armed drones, missile equipment, and other support material. China views Taiwan as part of its territory, and while it prefers to reclaim the de facto independent island peacefully, it has not ruled out using force if its “red lines” are crossed.

The latest sale comprises 291 Altius-600M systems, which are drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), armed with warheads. The State Department release notes 720 Switchblade drones, described as “extended-range loitering munitions,” are also included with the package.

The statement went on to claim that the sale “serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient’s continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability.” Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te thanked Washington for the new hardware, insisting they will increase regional stability. “In the future, we will continue to strengthen Taiwan’s national defense strength, whether through … military purchases or our own efforts,” he said.

Wednesday’s announcement follows reports this week that Chinese President Xi Jinping told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last year that he believes the hawkish US posture in the region and its increased military support for the island constitute an attempt to provoke an invasion by Beijing.

Keep reading

How to Deter a War with China Over Taiwan

Europe is suffering its largest land conflict since the Second World War in Ukraine. This fight could turn out to be a mere overture if war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait. Tensions are high: Congress recently approved $8.1 billion for Taipei and elsewhere in the Pacific, while the president has repeatedly said that he would defend Taiwan. That would put the United States into a conflict potentially like no other, with nuclear weapons at 10 paces.

Yet those most determined to escalate America’s involvement in the Russo–Ukrainian war insist that there is nothing to worry about. If only the U.S. holds firm in Ukraine, the Chinese will run for cover over Taiwan. Yet the claim that Beijing would fear Washington when the latter refuses to intervene on Kiev’s behalf, allowing Moscow’s aggression to advance, seems illogical at best. Indeed, Johns Hopkins’s Hal Brands warned that this stance may “have convinced Beijing that the United States just won’t fight a conventional war against a nuclear-armed rival.” Hence China’s ongoing nuclear build-up.

Worse, American policy seems more likely to encourage than discourage such a conflict. Rather than reassure the People’s Republic of China that its red lines won’t be crossed, the administration is stationing American forces in Taiwan, emphasizing that nation’s value in constraining China, and saying little as congressional leaders flaunt ties with Taipei. Leading Republicans, including a former secretary of state and national security adviser, advocate recognizing Taiwan as the Republic of China. It is almost as if Washington’s policy elite wants war with the PRC.

They shouldn’t. 

Keep reading

What the Ukraine War, Taiwan, and Gaza Have in Common

In confronting all three foreign policy dilemmas, Washington needs to incorporate an understanding and acknowledgment of the things the United States has done that contributed to them.

Washington is grappling with seemingly intractable foreign policy dilemmas involving the Russian war in Ukraine, percolating tensions across the Taiwan Strait, and the conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. In each case, the United States has failed or refused to wholly confront its own share of responsibility for creating the problem. This has profound implications for establishing a stable peace in these three hotspots.

In the case of Ukraine, much ink has been spilled in the debate over the extent to which NATO expansion in the decades after the Cold War fueled Putin’s decision to launch the war. Washington’s response to the invasion has largely treated that debate as irrelevant. Instead, it has essentially adopted the premise that Putin never got over the collapse of the Soviet Union and always intended to reincorporate Ukraine into Russia forcefully. This perspective has largely ignored evidence and historical logic that the invasion was not inevitable and was contingent on external variables, including U.S. actions.

In his seminal 2021 essay “On the Historical Unity of Russian and Ukrainians,” Putin wrote that after the Soviet collapse, Moscow “recognized the new geopolitical realities and not only recognized but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country.” This was because “many people in Russia and Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual, and economic ties would certainly last. . . . However, events—at first gradually and then more rapidly—started to move in a different direction.” These “events” included Ukrainian political developments that led to closer ties between Kiev and the West. “Step by step,” Putin wrote, “Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia.” But the West deflected Moscow’s concerns about this trajectory.

In his recent interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, Putin reiterated this narrative. He said Russia had “agreed, voluntarily and proactively, to the collapse of the Soviet Union” because it “believed that this would be understood . . . as an invitation for cooperation and associateship” with the West. This could have taken the form of “a new security system” that would include the United States, European countries, and Russia—rather than the enlargement of NATO, which (according to Putin) Washington promised would extend “not one inch” to the east. Instead, there were “five waves of expansion,” and “in 2008 suddenly the doors or gates to NATO were open” to Ukraine. However, Moscow “never agreed to NATO’s expansion, and we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO.” Putin went on to blame the subsequent war on what he characterized as the U.S.-backed, anti-Russian “Maidan Revolution” in Ukraine in 2014, the West’s embrace of Kiev at Russia’s expense, and Washington’s persistent disregard of Moscow’s security concerns.

It is easy to dismiss Putin’s narrative as self-serving, disingenuous propaganda. He is indeed a monstrous figure, as the recent death of imprisoned Russian dissident Alexei Navalny demonstrates. But that does not address—instead, it evades—the historical question of whether U.S. policies toward NATO expansion in general and Ukraine’s candidacy in particular contributed to Putin’s ultimate decision to invade Ukraine. 

Keep reading

DISGUSTING: US Senate Advances $95 Billion Aid Package to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan in Rare Super Bowl Sunday Vote — Here are the 18 Republicans Who Voted with Democrats

In an unusual session held on Super Bowl Sunday, the US Senate voted to move forward a substantial $95 billion aid package that will support Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, with no southern border security provisions. The vote garnered support from RINOs, with a final tally of 67-27.

The vote came in response to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.)’s steadfast refusal to expedite voting on the bill, which he vehemently criticized as “rotten” and detrimental to national interests.

Senator Paul, expressing his staunch opposition, declared he would not allow the bill to pass immediately, emphasizing his concerns over prioritizing foreign aid over domestic issues.

According to the Hill, Schumer offered Republicans the chance to vote on amendments in exchange for expediting the legislative process.

“By a vote of 67-27, The Senate invoked cloture on Murray substitute amendment 1388 to H.R.815, legislative vehicle for supplemental appropriations,” the Senate Press Gallery wrote on X.

Sixty-seven senators voted in favor of war funding, while 27 senators opposed the expenditure, all of whom were Republicans.

On Super Bowl Sunday, the following 18 Republican senators supported the Ukraine war funding:

  • Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
  • Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
  • Susan Collins (R-ME)
  • John Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Joni Ernst (R-IA)
  • Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
  • John Kennedy (R-LA)
  • Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
  • Jerry Moran (R-KS)
  • Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)
  • Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Mitt Romney (R-UT)
  • Mike Rounds (R-SD)
  • Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
  • John Thune (R-SD)
  • Thom Tillis (R-NC)
  • Roger Wicker (R-MS)
  • Todd Young (R-IN)

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) acknowledged the unusual scheduling.

“I can’t remember the last time the Senate was in session on Super Bowl Sunday, but as I’ve said all week long, we’re going to keep working on this bill until the job is done,” Schumer said.

Keep reading

Joe Biden Fails to Congratulate Taiwan’s President-Elect: ‘We Don’t Support Independence’

President Joe Biden offered no words of congratulations or support to Taiwanese President-elect Lai Ching-te following his election victory on Saturday, telling reporters simply that America does “not support independence.”

Lai, of the anti-communist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), defeated two leftist rivals on Saturday to hand his party an unprecedented third term in power. Lai is currently the vice president of the country and will succeed current DPP President Tsai Ing-wen.

Taiwan is a sovereign nation with its own government and civil institutions wholly independent of the Chinese Communist Party. Despite this reality, Beijing insists that Taiwan is a province of China and its government is a rogue “separatist” organization. The Chinese government forces countries to choose between recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty or diplomatic ties with China, so most of the world’s nations do not maintain formal ties with Taiwan. At press time, only 12 countries in the world recognize Taiwanese sovereignty, following Nauru’s abandonment of Taipei this weekend in the aftermath of Lai’s election. America is not one of the 12; former President Jimmy Carter abandoned Taiwan to forge ties with the Communist Party in 1979.

Keep reading

Top Defense Official: US Can Handle Middle East, Russia & China Operations All At Once

It might be difficult for most any American, especially in the younger generation, to remember a time when America was not deeply involved in a raging foreign conflict – whether directly or via proxies. At this very moment the US is shipping heavy weapons and sinking billions in aid into to no less than two major wars which have the potential to erupt into broader regional or even world conflagrations involving clashing large powers: namely, the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Gaza conflicts.

While much of the public might rightly think the United States has once again overextended itself, one top defense official has shrugged it off and essentially said… no problem. At an Atlantic Council event held days ago Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Christopher Grady said that the Pentagon stands ready to handle missions connected to three potential proxy wars in defense if its interests if it comes to that.

Grady described that the US Navy in particular is capable of waging battle against Russia in Ukraine, against China in Taiwan, and is ready to assist the Israelis in Gaza if called upon. This could be done simultaneously, he described, while admitting this would stretch naval forces thin.

Adm. Grady explained, “You look at what is required to support Ukraine, look at what might be required to support our partner in Israel, and then, of course, you put Taiwan on top of that—we have the construct that we do with combatant commanders and the rest that should allow us to command and control those three things all at one time.”

He stressed, “It’s part of our campaigning process, which is central to the national defense strategy. Is it challenging? Sure.” During the remarks he spoke of various emerging global hotspots as “test cases” and suggested that the so-called rules-based order would collapse if the US didn’t rise to the challenge.

On China in particular, and the potential for future clash over Taiwan independence, he said as follows:

Grady said increased Chinese activity near the shoal was “a case where the probability of buffoonery goes way high as you start to see the Chinese PRC, PLA and, more importantly, not PLA and but kind of white and white vessels like Coast Guard equivalents,” participating in activities meant to coerce U.S. allies in the region like the Philippines and Taiwan. 

More disturbingly, he said, “The tempo is a little bit higher right now. This Isn’t a test case for what we would do; I think it’s a test case for the whole rules-based international order, frankly.”

This appeared an attempt to justify and rally behind Biden’s pushing Congress to pass a $106 billion funding package to further arm Ukraine, Israel, as well as support operations in the Asia-Pacific.

Keep reading

US To Cut Special Forces In Pivot From Mideast To ‘China Threat’ Readiness

The US military’s recruiting struggles have been no secret, having been reported widely for years, at a moment Washington hawks look for “new enemies” following two decades of the so-called global war on terror (GWOT) and the deeply unpopular ‘forever wars’ Iraq and Afghanistan. 

On Thursday The Wall Street Journal has learned that the Pentagon is set to significantly cut its fighting force among special operations units. But the controversial plan is already receiving significant pushback among top brass overseeing special warfare and training of foreign allied forces.

While special operators’ heyday was the type of counterterror operations that defined the GWOT era of elite forces, the thinking on Capitol Hill is that the future will involve potential conflicts with large powers like Russia or China. 

The Journals’ sources spell out that the cut is motivated by a shift in strategic priorities away from the Middle East and especially toward the “China threat”. 

“The Army is cutting about 3,000 troops, or about 10% from its special-operations ranks, which could include so-called trigger-pullers from the Green Beret commando units who have conducted some of the nation’s most dangerous and sensitive missions around the world, from the jungles of Vietnam to the back alleys of Baghdad,” writes the WSJ.

US military officials listed out the types of Army jobs on the chopping block as follows: psychological warfare, civil affairs, intelligence operators, communications troops, logistics and other elite support roles, with all of these related to special forces.

The report tallies that in total Special Operations Command would be reduced by about 3,700 troops since last year. But this has resulted in pushback from senior officers who argue that the training of partner forces – such as in Ukraine or Taiwan – could be negatively impacted by the cuts.

Keep reading

US OKs First-Ever Foreign Military Financing Arms Package for Taiwan

The Biden administration has approved the first-ever military aid package for Taiwan using Foreign Military Financing (FMF), a State Department program that gives foreign governments money to buy US arms.

The Associated Press noted that FMF is typically reserved for sovereign, independent states, and the US does not recognize Taiwan as a country. US officials told AP that the only other time FMF has been used for a non-nation-state was assistance to the African Union, a bloc of 55 African states.

The FMF package is worth $80 million, but the administration did not disclose its contents in a notification to Congress. The 2023 National Defense Authorization Act included $2 billion in FMF funds for Taiwan. This marks the first time the funds have been used.

Keep reading