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.
I think you are on the right track. Did the U.S protest the return of Hong Kong or Macau. I know Hong Kong had a 99 year lease and the British returned it earlier, and the Portuguese gave up on Macau as unmanageable. But if China moved swiftly and stated that they are going to leave Taiwan to itself politically and economically, as they stated they would originally leave Hong Kong to itself, they could get away with it. The U.S. couldn't move swiftly enough militarily or politically to counteract China's might. Sorry Taiwan.
Posted by: Acker | August 24, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Britain got the 99 year lease for Hongkong in 1898.
Posted by: cindy | August 24, 2007 at 01:40 AM
Hongkong was ceded by the Qing government of China to Britain after the Opium war. It was NOT a lease. The 99-year lease was related to the New Territory (and 233 islands nearby) north to Hongkong. The treaty was singed on 9 June, 1898.
Therefore, in legal terms the New Terrority was due to be returned to China 99 years later on 9 June, 1997, the year Hongkong was "handed over".
The British was not obliged to hand over Hongkong. However, just like China made itself "obliged" to hand over Hongkong to Britain in 1840s, Britain in 1980s felt that it was better to make itself "obliged" to hand over Hongkong back to China. Why? you tell me.
Posted by: cc | August 24, 2007 at 06:37 AM
Thanks for the in depth history review. That is what I get for typing things off the cuff.
Obliged is a nice diplomatic word which saves face for both sides. That is why.
Care to answer the question about Taiwan?
Posted by: Acker | August 24, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Only some view on your remark about Taiwan:
It is not "if" China moved swiftly and stated that they are going to leave Taiwan to itself politically and economically, It is China has stated that they are going to leave Taiwan to itself politically and economically (should a reunificaiton agreement be reached).
The offer is One Country, Two Sytems, something similar to Hongkong, but with even better compromise like Taiwan could keep its military (inexplicit offer). In short, everything is negotiable except the name and the diplomatic status.
Finally, the US has been using Taiwan and the Taiwan issue as a pawn on its chess board. I see no reason they should stop doing so ín the near future unless being forced by the change of power balance or an incident.
The whole issue is much more complex than Hongkong.
Posted by: cc | August 24, 2007 at 05:49 PM
It's sad that in this discussion, no mention is made of the rights of the people of Taiwan, and the universal principles of self-determination. It's the morally right thing to mention and discuss why one much larger nation is allowed to bully the people of another.
Posted by: foo bar | August 25, 2007 at 02:27 PM
re: foo bar
Of course not, this post is intend on talking the power politic and the strategic angle of the situation. The moral politic aspect is not the focus of this article.
For Americans, whether or not a war is actually affordable or in American overall interest is the question. What is the political will of the Americans in facing down China over Taiwan? China certainly seems to have demonstrated their firm determination to attack in the event of a "unilaterial change to status quo", what about US's resolve to defend?
Posted by: Falen | August 25, 2007 at 08:54 PM
hehe, universal principles of self-determination, morally right thing to mention... All shining words. However, this will lead to nowhere but a classcial Hollywood depicting of goodies vs badies. The reality is much more complicated than those shiny phrases.
Posted by: cc | August 25, 2007 at 09:47 PM
Clueless, just clueless and laughable.
Maybe Johnson has been playing video
games to long. 1000 missles? So what? That is nothing.
The Chinese do not have OTH targeting which means they would be shooting blind at targets that were long ago cleared out.
As for the US not getting there in time. Again, clueless. The CHinese military
keeps one of the lower states of military readiness of any major military in the world. It takes them months just to gear up for major exercises.
So what are they going to do? Sneak up and fire the missles, then wait 3 months to get their invasion force set
before they come over.
And what about Japan? Will they just sit by, when they have fighters that can stay over Taiwan for two hours with refueling?
There will be months if not years of ample warning to the world that China is planning something. MOBILIZATION.
I am certain at all the cocktail parties in Beijing, where your talk is just that, talk, you excuse these little "facts" that get in the way of the discussion. But if you write about something and want to be taken seriously, then at least know something.
And do you have any clue what the PLA itself thinks of it's ability to
get across the straits. They say not possible at present or in near future, which is why they are pressing the
government to create more military shipyards, as the government shipyards are building the containerships that carry all those goods from all those factories that Mr. Johnson thinks are destroying China.
As for the US response.
It would take months for China to get ready and by that time, just as Bill Clinton did, a US president would have US aircraft carriers sitting east of Taiwan and fighter wings in Oky...
And Mr. Johnson must be a complete
panda hugger, which he is known to be, to go to Taiwan and actually think that the Taiwanese people would roll over on a rocket barrage.
This is just a silly blog entry.
Posted by: mark simon | August 25, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Haha as expected the trolls are swarming around once again. So the question still "Would US defend Taiwan?"
Posted by: Falen | August 25, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I am no military expert. Sounds like a few of you are :-). But if China staged "exercises" with one navy group together with N. Korea and a second navy group from the south and then sailed to Taiwan together. In combination with a strategic strikes by China's air force against command & communications in Taiwan. Who knows.
Then again maybe they could stage a bloodless coup. And pay millions to a number of sympathetic Taiwanese parliamentarians, in hopes of gaining political favor. Certainly, China has the purchasing power to pull that off.
Either way we all know that the "one country, two systems" proposition was a lie. Politically, the Chinese communist party has positioned itself in Hong Kong so that it is in control. There is no more Democracy in Hong Kong.
I suspect China would replicate it's successes in Hong Kong and transmit them to Taiwan.
And no the U.S. won't step in either way. It hasn't the military might to support any serious offensive against China at this time. Remember Iraq and Afghanistan?
Posted by: Acker | August 26, 2007 at 12:39 AM
And by the way placing air craft carriers in the way and actually launching fighters into the air and commanding them to fire on Chinese jets and vessels is two significantly different measures of response. The U.S. won't fire on the Chinese over Taiwan. Neither will the Japanese. If China attacked either Japan or the U.S. that is a different matter. The island isn't worth fighting over for either political, economic or strategic reasons.
Posted by: Acker | August 26, 2007 at 12:46 AM
If the island isn't worth America's trouble then how much stomach is there for another "war of choice"?
Posted by: Falen | August 26, 2007 at 03:18 AM
Foo bar makes a valid point. Why is there not more worldwide sympathy for Taiwan's situation? I've been to Taiwan a few times and it's a remarkable place. My own opinion, though, is that the Taiwanese are far from united on how to respond to China. Many are busily making money on the mainland. I have never felt a sense that Taiwanese en masse would be willing to die to defend the island. More often, I get a sense of, 'Let the Americans die to defend us. They are stronger.' Maybe I'm wrong. Let's see.
On Mark Simon's points, listen, I think you need to defend your position better. OTH stands for over-the-horizon radar which is obsolete technology given the kinds of surveillance satellites that both China and the United States have.
I ask you, Mark, what would happen if only six or seven short-range missiles tore into Taipei 101, Asia's tallest building? Each one has a blast range of 30 meters. How about if they hit the hardened air shelters at Taiwan's airbases, trapping jetfighters inside? The stock market in Taipei drops in half.
I'd also be curious to hear you explain how Japanese leaders could defy their own constitution to engage in a fight over Taiwan. Last I heard, Japan's fighters are not equipped with supersonic air-to-air missiles like the Chinese aircraft. How would they stay in the air?
Posted by: Tim | August 26, 2007 at 05:49 AM
"Why is there not more worldwide sympathy for Taiwan's situation?"
Complicated history attribute to the overall situation, but basically power politic dictates other nation choosing their own bilateral interest with China over the well being of Taiwan over some "universal principles." US makes the same calculation and it is only going to get harder and harder for Taiwan as times goes on. China puts political capital behind their insistence on "One China" policy. For others this is at best just another curious Hollywood movie to watch but fundamentally none of their business to jeopardize their own interest in.
Posted by: Falen | August 26, 2007 at 09:15 AM
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) mandates nothing -- indeed, it does not even permit Taiwan to have a say in the situation. The decision is solely the President's, in consultation with Congress. What it does is mandate a political calculus, but that would have happened anyway. Chen is playing games with the media.
The US decision will depend on how the US perceives the situation. China has been very successful in controlling the way the foreign media presents its claim to Taiwan, and its view is also widely accepted within the State Department, though thankfully not universally so. Hence, the gatekeepers of perception, the media and State, are likely to shape US government perceptions in ways that serve Chinese needs.
While China makes noises of "anger" at Taiwan, these are media events that play out in the media, and almost never have real world consequences. China never restricts investment, arrests Taiwanese, slaps bans on trade, restricts travel, etc. The same situation occurred when Chris Patten "angered" China and UK commentators fretted that China was going to restrict trade with the UK. Nothing happened, of course. A similar situation occurs today, whenever Taiwan "provokes" Beijing -- the reality being, of course, that being provoked is a policy choice that has served Beijing well. Not only does it shape the media discourse about Taiwan, it also has acquired strong influence over US policy.
So the first test of the situation will be whether US perceives, correctly, that China is moving because it wants to, and not because it is "provoked." If China can say it was "provoked" and convince key US decisionmakers it has cause, then the US might not move.
A second issue will be the attitude of the State Department, which lately has been opposing arms sales to Taiwan, undermining US relations with the island, and taking Beijing's side most of the time.
A third issue will be the attitude of Japan. It has slowly dawned on the island's leaders that Taiwan is a key component of their security arrangements. If Japan pushes the US to intervene and signals that it will back the US play, that will go a long way toward pushing the US to defend Taiwan. If not.... China's continued military expansion will only drive Japan and Taiwan closer, fortunately for Taiwan.
A fourth issue will be the US economy. Can the US sustain an intervention? With our current criminal stupidity in Iraq, probably not.
A fifth issue will be the Taiwan government. A government run by the pro-Taiwan parties, the DPP and its allies, will probably defend the island. A government run by the pro-China parties, the KMT and its allies, will probably hold the door open for the Chinese. That perception alone is one huge reason that the KMT will probably lose the Presidential election here.
The sixth issue will be the US military situation -- what forces are available, etc. The State Department has been systematically strangling US military exchanges with Taiwan, and that lack of understanding on both sides may well be a factor as well. If Japanese forces are available and in play right away, well, that will make a huge difference.
Yet another issue will be the US president. Who would want to be the Party that lost Taiwan? Not the Republicans -- conservatives especially are pro-Taiwan. But the Dems wouldn't want to be that party either. Congress is strongly pro-Taiwan but they usually stop short of interference in foreign affairs....
As an American and as someone who has lived in Taiwan most of his adult life, I'd like to think we'd honor our ethical and political obligations and defend the island. And speaking on a media worker's blog, I hope the world's media will substantially improve its usually mediocre, Beijing-centric coverage of the island, and contribute to a the development of a positive consensus on the issue in the US.
Michael
Posted by: Michael Turton | August 26, 2007 at 11:41 AM
+++++
I'd also be curious to hear you explain how Japanese leaders could defy their own constitution to engage in a fight over Taiwan. Last I heard, Japan's fighters are not equipped with supersonic air-to-air missiles like the Chinese aircraft. How would they stay in the air?
+++++++
Huh? Mitisubishi makes three different types of supersonic AAMs (-3,-4,-5). The AAM-4 does mach 4 or 5, and Japan has equipped F-15s with it.
As for "defying the Constitution" that seems to be no problem for Japan's leaders, who have already committed Japanese military forces to overseas operations "in support of" the US military. Beginning in the Korean War, though it is not generally known.....
Also, the idea that China could take Taiwan in 24 hours is fun to think and speculate about, but it is highly unlikely. The island has 2,000 Hawk surface to air missiles that would have to be put out of service (it's possible if they can suborn key people). Good luck trying to take out the base for 200 fighters in Hualien, carved out of a mountain. As for the vaunted 1,000 missiles, they are nice terror weapons, and will probably kill lots of innocent people, but as war winners they are not so hot -- think how many bombs were dropped on Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Vietnam, and other places in various wars -- many times those thousand missiles. They are useful as propaganda for each side, but as military threats, the PRC's aircraft and navy is the more serious threat. There are scenarios for taking it out, but they hinge on large amounts of cooperation from within the Taiwan military. That threat will recede as the mainlanders retire and die off and Taiwanese come into positions of authority.
Also, the Taiwanese have a long history of resistance to occupation -- years of revolts against Qing colonialism, followed by more fighting against the Japanese, followed by armed resistance against the KMT that flared up briefly in 1947, though the government was still turning up weapons caches in the 1950s. Taiwan might be taken in a lightning assault, but whether it can be held is another question. And how will the Chinese rule it? Even if the Chinese knock off the government, failure to consolidate might well encourage the US to intervene.
Michael
Posted by: Michael Turton | August 26, 2007 at 11:58 AM
++++++
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?
++++++
You can see how your question assigns the blame to Taiwan. Taiwan is not the problem. Desire for freedom and democracy is not a problem. Opposition to those values causes the problem. It is China, not Taiwan, that will decide when to invade.
Except as media theatre, the behavior of the island's leadership really has very little to do with China's decision on whether to annex the island by force. That will come down to long-term demographic and sociopolitical trends (few in Taiwan see themselves as citizens of a state centered in Beijing), the ability of the pro-China parties to keep democratic development here at bay, the shifts in the military balance, and similar. The behavior of particular individuals in Taiwan might make a convenient excuse, but they will not be the reason China invades.
In other words, the public in the US couldn't have "a sense that the Taiwan president hadn't done his utmost" without substantial cooperation from the international media in framing and shaping the behavior of said President.
Michael
Posted by: Michael Turton | August 26, 2007 at 12:06 PM
++++
In other words, the public in the US couldn't have "a sense that the Taiwan president hadn't done his utmost" without substantial cooperation from the international media in framing and shaping the behavior of said President.
+++=
Aargh! That should be "framing and shaping THE PERCEPTION of the behavior.....
Michael
Posted by: Michael Turton | August 26, 2007 at 12:09 PM
test
Posted by: JeffC | August 26, 2007 at 03:57 PM
How the US will respond depends on at least three factors: when does mainland China act decisively, what force is used, and what is happening at that moment.
If mainland China now or within 5 years used great force and a lot of people in Taiwan die, then US military interference is quite likely.
One the other hand, if in 2020, mainland China just increases threats and pressure, like harassing Taiwan's energy supply, and Taiwan suffers economically but not in life, then the chance of US interference, military or economic, is nearly nil.
In time, the US will accept Taiwan peacefully coerced into another Hong Kong, likely with some arms for defense so that mainland troop cannot easily land on the island.
What else is there? The Taiwan problem will eventually have to be solved, in view of a more and more economically and militarily developed mainland China.
The USA will avoid conflict, not just military but also economic, with mainland China.
Posted by: JeffC | August 26, 2007 at 04:11 PM
I don't think mainland China has any reason to used great force now or within 20 years to attack Taiwan.
Mainland China will wait until threat without execution will win Taiwan back, with a modified Hong Kong arrangement, with Taiwan's right to bear some arms to prevent mainland troops from landing.
Mainland China will almost certainly control Taiwan remotely by manipulating Taiwan's energy supply, creating an enveloping cloud of energy uncertainty on the island. There isn’t much that Taiwan could do then. By 2020, its economy will suffer if it does not accept a Hong Kong deal.
I think in time it will be a sure win for mainland China, as long as it is still amenable to giving Taiwan autonomy. Taiwan will not be independent due to its geography, but will have a high degree of autonomy.
In the long run the USA will do nil to thwart Taiwan becoming another Hong Kong. In fact, Taiwan becoming another Hong Kong is best for the USA. Taiwan as another Hong Kong will have the best impact on mainland China that fits the USA’s long term broad based objectives in Greater China.
Posted by: JeffC | August 26, 2007 at 04:34 PM
I'm gratified by the high level of this discussion.
Michael brings up a good point that I'm sure gives huge pause to the mainland. What happens if things can't be tidied up in 24 hours and there is simmering rebellion? Worldwide public opinion would sharpen and intensify in a flash.
Posted by: Tim J | August 26, 2007 at 09:30 PM
Honestly tho, the biggest X factor in this 3-way fight between Taiwan, China and US is the Taiwan independence force. From as far as I can see China feels time is ultimately on their side just by keeping the status quo alive. Just the same for US, a war with China over Taiwan Strait is fundamentally undermines US core interest everywhere.
Only the independence zealot will feel that the time is "running out" so to speak in terms of international relation. They might feel desperate enough to jump the gun and do something risky to truely upset the status quo.
In that case, how US and China will respond will be highly unpredictable.
Posted by: Falen | August 27, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Honestly, there is only one person who can suddenly precipitate a chain of event that lead to a crisis, and that is Chen Shui Bien.
Posted by: Falen | August 27, 2007 at 12:23 AM