I’m going to post this again because I think it’s important. I found evidence that US and Japanese naval strategists have seen Chinese naval experts do nothing but quote 19th century American naval theory – namely Alfred Thayer Mahan. I don’t think Kaplan was drawing an analogy, he was referring to the actual popularity of 19th century writings in the Chinese navy. It’s the Chinese, apparently, drawing the analogy themselves, not Kaplan.

As for coopting Chinese power, I think it’s great. Just figure out how.

Maybe it’s just because I have a soft spot for the Phillipines.

EEZ: why did you say “extend”? it would still be taiwan’s to start with if there is no strait war.

Japan’s position: yes, if you assume the ally is forever.

“expectation throughout the world”? even the taiwanese themselve do not take this for granted.
there is significant different between the world’s view on taiwan than other ‘countries’, because of the UN, Diplomatic recognition, etc. every country that established diplomatic relationship with PRC has to come clear on Taiwan, including Japan, except US.

there are reasons for US to save taiwan, but it is not about expectation from the world, or korea. it is also not about TRA. TRA just gives the excuse to act.

Taiwan may not be the most democratic state in the world, but it is unquestionably among the top three freest democracies in Asia, along with Japan and South Korea. Martial law only ended in 1987, and they didn’t even have direct elections for the presidency for several more years after that. Considering the short history of Taiwan’s democracy, the record doesn’t really look so bad.

Imagine how much longer it would take China to transition from their current system to a free, non-corrupt democratic one if they started tomorrow.

**

The US military relationship with Taiwan is very different from South Korea and Japan. Unlike those two countries, we do not have a real military presence here in Taiwan. We give and sell (mainly sell) military equipment, and we provide training and have a small tactical command center, presumably with the authority to call in troops from Okinawa and Guam in the event of an attack, but there are no US military bases anywhere in Taiwan or the outlying islands.

But, regardless of the exact details of the relationship, the expectation throughout the entire world for decades is that the US has promised to protect and defend Taiwan from Chinese agression (the expectation in the case of Taiwanese provocation is less clear, so let’s leave that issue aside for today). If China unilaterally decided to invade Taiwan, and the United States just stood aside and watched, would any of our allies ever trust us again? Of course not, if that were the example we set, it would be suicidal to expect us to come to anyone’s aid in the future.

Without getting into a discussion about the origins of the Iraq war, the official line is currently that we are there to bring democracy. How can one possibly reconcile the possibility that, after bringing down a totalitarian regime to install democracy in the Middle East, we stand by and allow another totalitarian government to invade and conquer an established democracy that we have promised to defend in the past?

If we were to let China invade Taiwan without a fight, it would be the best proof so far to both allies and enemies of the US around the world that the war in Iraq was not the result of a pro-democracy policy, but 21st century petroleum mercantilism.

It is enough that Taiwan is an economic and poltical fellow traveller, easily an ally if we stand up for them, in a critical region to the Great Game of the Pacific in the 21st Century.

As any good chess player knows, never give up a pawn simply because you don’t see the value of it. Every piece has value, the pawns all the more because those who do not put effort in advancing in the small ways can never hope to gain much ground at all in the big ways.

1. (a) Defense articles and services
   In furtherance of the policy set forth in section 3301 of this title, the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

1. (b) Determination of Taiwan’s defense needs
   The President and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan, in accordance with procedures established by law. Such determination of Taiwan’s defense needs shall include review by United States military authorities in connection with recommendations to the President and the Congress.
2. © United States response to threats to Taiwan or dangers to United States interests
   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.

As I stated earlier, the United State’s only obligation is to sell Taiwan defensive weapons (which are deemed appropriate solely by US discretion) and the President to inform Congress to determine appropriate action. This is also suitably vague and dependant upon the interpretations of the residing President. Contrast this to the prior mutual defense treaty and the difference in intent is quite clear.

Article 2

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack and communist subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability.

Article 5

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the West Pacific Area directed against the territories of either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 7

The Government of the Republic of China grants, and the Government of the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose such United States land, air, and sea forces in and about Taiwan and the Pescadores as may be required for their defense, as determined by mutual agreement.

That is not to say the U.S. will not come to Taiwan’s aid, but it is no guarantee as you seem to be assuming.

They could be concerned for various reason, as you alleged.
To be concerned about Taiwan is different from to think US will break the treaty. these are completely different issues.

—
second-guessing their attitudes

tokyo, i don’t know.

seoul, they are probably sympathetic to china, because they also have the norks problem for themselves. the koreans do not have ambition on taiwan.
if you advocate a manchukuo independence they might be interested.

—
i am very critical of the PRC/CCP, if you see some of my other posts. i seem to appear more sympathetic because i think it is more valuable for me to present to you guys some views that you might not have thought of or understood. there are already enough voices critical of the PRC that there is no need (and no incremental value) for me to bandwagon.

Seoul and Tokyo are not going to see Taiwan swallowed by China and nod their heads: “Oh, nevermind — the US defense guarantee of Taiwan wasn’t really a defense treaty. Our faith in the US defense of our nation is unchanged.” Nonsense. From personal experience I can relate that the weakness of America’s will to defend Japan is the primary defense concern; while I can’t claim intimate knowledge of thoughts in ROK, common sense would dictate it’s the same. Great quote from Thirteen Days: “There’s only one way the world’s going to read this — we’ll sell out our allies for our own safety.”

Final comment from me on Taiwan in comments, I have a post on this coming up later this week.

Note: We disagree on much, but as Jing rarely darkens our doors anymore, it’s good to have a commenter sympathetic to/advocating the PRC point of view (which is mighty rare in the western world.)

great points.

“it would probably derail globalization, cause China to break up like the USSR or form a revisionist military bloc with Russia, North Korea, Iran and other malcontented states.”

there are some people who believe this is good for america, i.e. some = those who believe there is a zero-sum game, and those who are eager to sell weapons.
– esp. the “break up like USSR” part, even though it is extremely unlikely.

you forgot what you said again :)

you said, “what would the Japanese or Koreans think of this? Even if they don’t recognize the Republic of China, they do have defense pacts with the US. What would the impact there be if we dropped committed allies because it suddenly “wasn’t in our best interest.”Â? “

i said, there is no binding commitment for taiwan.
so korea and japan will not think the way you thought.

First, it is important to note that the American position on Taiwan has never changed since the Shanghai Communique and the pasage of The Taiwan Relations Act.

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/communique01.htm

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/tra01.htm

It is China and Taiwan that have modified their diplomatic stances. Taipei by dropping their claim to be the legitimate government of all China and moving toward de jure independence as a Taiwanese nation and the PRC by making an active and aggressive shift in their defense posture to a forward position to reunify Taiwan by force ( or punish it militarily for declaring independence).

American interest is in the Taiwan straits maintaining the status quo or failing that, a peaceful resolution of the dispute that is not too disadvantageous to Taipei.

What is troubling is the propensity of the current administration in Taipei to play with fire in terms of provoking Beijing while being entirely unrealistic about Taiwan’s defense needs for such a risky foreign policy game of chicken. The U.S. should be there to defend Taiwan in extremis against Chinese aggression and threats to Taipei’s de facto independence – we are not here to be manuvered into a needless war with China that some politicians in Taiwan seem determined to provoke.

Such a war would not only be a disaster for Taiwan and China but for everyone since it would probably derail globalization, cause China to break up like the USSR or form a revisionist military bloc with Russia, North Korea, Iran and other malcontented states.
A high cost for supporting Taiwanese independence.

Being provocative while downsizing one’s military as Taiwan seems to be doing is a very stupid policy and one the U.S. should not support or encourage.

It is the policy of the United States– 3. to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;
4. to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;
5. to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and
6. 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.

From Wikipedia:

The PRC does not recognize the legitimacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as it is viewed by them as “an unwarranted intrusion by the United States into the internal affairs of China.” Nonetheless, the United States, despite having “acknowledged” the PRC’s position regarding Taiwan, declared that “the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan” as part of the Six Assurances offered to Taipei in 1982.

See also our ipso facto embassy in Taiwan, the American Institute in Taiwan.

So the US won’t protect Taiwan, but it will; that we don’t recognize Taiwan, etc etc.

That being said, our defense pact with Taiwan is indeed from a different era and needs to be rethought. This cold war thinking needs to be dropped as we live in an infinitely different world today. What is more important, letting down the Taiwanese or coopting China and helping to assure its peaceful rise and the success of globalization?

Besides, smoothing things over with China would also benefit Japan greatly and thus I can imagine they wouldn’t be too worried. South Korea is in a similar situation, but then again what good are they to us right now anyway =)

As YH said, we’re talking about grand strategy here, not the details.

Plus, Taiwan isn’t exactly the free-est democracy right now anyways, what with bosses forcing their workers to vote for particular people at the polls. China won’t do anything drastic if it takes over Taiwan, not with the amount of dough that is there. It’ll look like the Hong Kong handover. In the end China will liberalize anyways, so why bother with this Cold War hold-out?

Best Regards,

- D. Advocate

Now for the other side:

The Chinese are insane and will blow Taiwan to bits so we have to stand by them, even though it’s not in our best interests. Plus, we have to show that we are all for struggling democracies. And even though China isn’t building a blue water Navy, those subs can make it to Japan no problem. Besides, it’s not like we have troops there. We keep the status quo and wait to see if China liberalizes or not. I’m not going to leave my 10 year old daughter alone in a room with a pedophile simply because I know it isn’t in his best interest to touch her. There is much more to China, and the Rational Actor Model can’t explain it all.

Best,

The Other Guy

It then happens to em that the best hedge for the US, is to encourage China to agricultural trade.
If China needs to import food, there is GUARANTEE China will never go into any war with US.

china is bending over to make peace with the smaller neighbors.

i was repsonding to this statement.