Posted on 09/01/2007 7:40:12 PM PDT by GeorgeKant
Here’s the $64,000 question: Under what circumstances would the White House send the U.S. military in to defend Taiwan?
I’m going to wade into a minefield today. Bear with me. You may see me get blown up.
It’s an eternally pertinent question, one on which East Asian stability may depend. Chinese ask it of me all the time. Taiwan’s leader, Chen Shui-bian, revived the question this week in Anchorage, of all places, a venue that holds meaning. Chen couldn’t win permission from Washington to refuel his plane in sunny California, where he likes to stop, getting the tundra instead, as he headed to Central America. Metaphorically speaking, Alaska is symbolic of his status in Washington.
He didn’t always get the frosty treatment. If Taiwanese believe that the Pentagon would come to their defense at any sign of threat, they have reason. In April 2001 President Bush said his government would do “whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan against Chinese attack.
In fact, there’s a bit of law involved. It’s called the Taiwan Relations Act, and it states responsibilities that Washington has on Taiwan. I’ll parse that law in a sec.
Back in Anchorage, a reporter asked Chen about U.S. protection guarantees. I’ve boldfaced the key part of the transcript if you want to skim past:
Question: If, as you say, the military balance has shifted towards China, in China's favor, this makes it all the more important for Taiwan to know what America might do. Are you confident that the United States will defend Taiwan in the event of an attack from China?Answer: According to the Taiwan Relations Act, which is part of the U.S.' domestic legislation, the U.S. is obligated to help Taiwan defend itself in the event of war with China. Furthermore, the U.S. and Japan have signed a security treaty. Japan also has related legislation regarding situations in its surrounding area. And such situations include security in the Taiwan Strait. So we think that as long as Taiwan is not the one inciting a military conflict, both the U.S. and Japan will make their concern known--especially the U.S. because of its obligation, as stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act, to come to Taiwan's aid in the event of a conflict.
Of course, we cannot rely on others to fight for us. We ourselves need to be prepared for a surprise attack from China. Therefore, it is vital that Taiwan can sustain itself militarily before the U.S. comes to our aid. So, whether and how long we can last out are crucial considerations. We will not place the responsibility for defending our own country on the U.S. That is why we deem it imperative that we strengthen our defense capabilities. By engaging in military reform and modernization, we aim to achieve this goal.
In so saying, however, I must point out that we do not intend to engage in an arms race with China. What we want to achieve is our strategic goal of “effective deterrence and resolute defense” for Taiwan. That is why we think it is important that we make enough effort in beefing up our defense capabilities and ensuring that our exercises, routine trainings, and drills are carried out properly and thoroughly. The enemy's fighter jets could attack us at any time, and our readiness is of the essence.
We do not seek to engage in war. But we must be prepared for war if we wish to prevent it and work towards achieving lasting peace.
Question: Do you know exactly, though, what the United States would do if you came under attack?
Answer: It is entirely up to the US government to decide on their course of action. But let me give you an example from the 1996 Taiwan Strait Missile Crisis. Between the second half of 1995 and March 1996, the month of our first-ever direct presidential election, China test-fired two waves of missiles, with one missile landing just 55 kilometers off the coast of Taiwan. In response to China's maneuvers, the U.S. government sent two aircraft carriers through the Taiwan Strait.
Chen is a lawyer and his answer is quite skillful. But he gives the impression that he believes the U.S. military is obligated to defend Taiwan if it is attacked.
In reality, any attack is likely to be a decapitating blow. China has nearly 1,000 short-range missiles pointed at Taiwan. A strike would likely be designed to win a war within 24 hours before the U.S. Seventh Fleet could arrive from its base in Japan. The Taiwanese stock market would collapse. China likely would block telecommunications.
So let’s see what the Taiwan Relations Act actually says. It does not obligate the United States to defend Taiwan, nor is it a security treaty. In the area of defense, it says Washington is:
1) to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character;
2) to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan;
3) The President is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger.
While President Bush said he’d do “whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan, the reality is that the only binding legal obligations are for Washington to sell weapons to Taiwan, maintain its own capacity to come to Taiwan’s aid, and thirdly for the president to tell Congress when Taiwan is under threat and set a route of action.
They might decide to issue diplomatic protests or take actions short of sending in the Marines. Who knows? That’s why the policy is said to have “strategic ambiguity.”
Some Taiwanese think that Washington has done too little in the face of China’s military buildup across the Taiwan Strait. They say the White House helped let the military balance become lopsided, thus making the U.S. military umbrella even more vital. Moreover, they say the White House must defend a fellow democracy under attack.
But then there are “facts on the ground,” as people in the Middle East like to say. With the U.S. military stretched to capacity, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is there a stomach for a new conflict? How many parents of U.S. military personnel would be eager to see their sons and daughters die for Taiwan if there were a sense that its leader hadn’t done his utmost to avoid a confrontation with China?
I personally think that even a limited war with China, a nuclear power, in defense of Taiwan would be a hard sell to the U.S. public.
If the ROC declares a unilateral independence and attempts to change the status quo on its own...then depending on who is in the White House, we probably will not.
I have been to Taiwan. They are our friends, both trade wise and ideologically. They are free and want to remain so. If we stood by in any case IMHO while they were overrun and slaughtered by Communists (and that is what the mainland still is), then it would be another severe and terrible blow to our foreign policy, to our reputation, and to our national honor.
It would also amount to a sell out and abject betrayal to a people who have been our friends and allies.
“It’s called the Taiwan Relations Act”
And it needs to be repealed. Our fighting men and women didn’t sign up to die for Taipei nor should they have to.
I actually agree with you. The beauty of the Taiwan Relations Act is its ambiguity, forcing both sides to pursue diplomatic means first.
Nevertheless, history is full of underestimations.
Amen Brother
I’m sad to say, as a former resident of Taiwan, that there is little hope that the U.S. will do anything to help them when the attack comes, as it surely will.
You possess a common misconception. Protecting the U.S. from foreign aggression is only one of the purposes of the military. It's main purpose, condensed into a few words, is to advance the geopolitical interests of the U.S. worldwide/i.e., to implement U.S. policy as needed. When you join the military, it is your job to advance the interests of your country as directed by the civil authorities.
I'm a active duty soldier in the U.S. Army, so I am not speaking from a disinterested position.
Good question.
The Chinese seem smart enough too fight their battles on economic and infotech fronts, but their bloodlust for the rebel island may get the best of ‘em. Would we fight for Taiwan? No we would not. We fear China. We’ll drive Iraq out of Kuwait, we’ll drive Saddam to the gallows, but we won’t mess with a big bully. We’ll cut and run, the Taiwan Relations Act be damned, and most will approve.
Taiwan is sort of a second home to me. I do not believe any war will occur unless the DPP tries to formally declare independence. I don’t Taiwan should do this and I don’t think Americans should die fighting for the “Taiwan Republic.”
War with China is becoming increasingly unthinkable, IMO.
Here's a site I maintain that you may find interest in:
Allowing Red China to attack and seize Taiwan would be the start of a strategic disaster for the United States. just reading that some on here think we should let it happen makes me sick. We better not consider letting those evil communist bastards launch a war of conquest, against a democracy, no less.
Thank you. God bless you.
Amen and amen. Spot on comments.
Well said...and thank you for your service to our Republic.
Navy.mil~8-31-07 :
Ships and Submarines
Deployable Battle Force Ships: 277
Ships Underway (away from homeport): 138 ships (50% of total)
On deployment: 117 ships (42% of total)
Attack submarines underway (away from homeport): 30 submarines (55%)
On deployment: 23 submarines (42%)
Ships Underway
Carriers:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - South China Sea
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Persian Gulf
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - South China Sea
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Atlantic Ocean
Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Nassau (LHA 4) _ Atlantic Ocean
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - Pacific Ocean
USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) - Gulf of Aden
USS Bohomme Richard (LHD 6) - Persian Gulf
USS New Orleans (LPD 18) - Pacific Ocean
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the short list,,,The part you “CAN” see...;0)
when we leave iraq with our tailfeathers in disarray, i reckon we won’t be going anywhere soon. if the dimmiecrats win the white house in 08 they will most likely cut the military to pieces. i don’t give a hoot what they say now. rather a glum prediction i know but we will not get into a shooting war with china for a tiny island. after all, we’ve sold out others before, and a shooting war with china could ruin our economy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.