After the crisis, Dubya overturns Taiwan doctrine

Great Debates
1

Followup to “Our flyers are free, how did Dubya do?”

After a dodgy start and a somewhat competent middle-game, Bush fumbles again. In a recent ABC television interview, Bush overturns the 30 year doctrine of “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan. Previous policy had involved arms sales to Taiwan so that it could defend itself. Whether the US would militarily defend Taiwan though was left deliberately ambiguous: it was thought that a promise to defend Taiwan could encourage the island province to declare independence, thus sparking the sort of military crisis that the US wished to avoid.

Now maybe there’s justification for overturning such a policy. Or maybe W hadn’t really grasped the nuances of US Asian policy, at least at the level that a casual reader of the New York Times would have.

I hope it’s the latter. If it’s the former, then the administration is remiss for not notifying Congress and its Asian allies about this shift in policy.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010426/ts/china_usa_congress_dc_1.html
Perhaps some might want to argue that W didn’t change US policy at all. Hmmmm:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010426/ts/china_usa_dc_24.html
W Quotes:

2

Sounds to me more like Bush is saying in much simpler terms what US Code Title 22 Section 3301 and Section 3302 say:

and

3

It seems he also forgot to check whether the Europeans were in a mood to sell the promised submarines to Taiwan…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1297000/1297140.stm
Maybe he plans to start building Diesel subs in the USA again ?
This administrations “If it ain’t broke, break it” approach to foreign policy is just plain baffling.

4

waterj2: Where in that list does it say that the US will defend Taiwan militarily if attacked? AFAIK, that aspect of the US-Taiwanese relationship was left deliberately ambiguous (until now?). Note that (6) talks specifically of “capacity”. I see nothing like a NATO doctrine of, “An attack of one is an attack on all”. Nor do I see a promise that the US will do, “Whatever it takes”.

Thanks Squink, let me quote the lead of your article:
"Plans by US President George W Bush to sell weapons including eight diesel-powered submarines to Taiwan have received an embarrassing setback at the hands of European governments.

Neither the Germans nor the Dutch, the only two countries producing the diesel engines, are willing to allow the sale of the subs to Taiwan.

That leaves Mr Bush in the unusual position of having promised to sell technology his country does not control, and may have difficulty supplying. "

5

I don’t want to see a military attack on Taiwan. I don’t want the US to face going to war with the PRC. The best way to deter war is to strongly support Taiwan now.

I’ve been reading NYT editorials which extol “balance”, but they never explain the purpose or the nuances. The ROC isn’t ever going to attack the PRC, so balance doesn’t promote peace. Having the PRC convinced not to make a military attack is what promotes peace.

Any of you Bush-bashers care to argue that a PRC attack becomes more likely if the PRC believes we will support the ROC? Or, can you argue that a PRC attack is more likely if the ROC has a stronger military?

IMHO the Times philosphy is simply not to piss off the PRC. That policy isn’t working. Clinton has been nice as pie to them, and they still knocked our plane out of the air over international waters, held the plane and crew, and are now holding four American residents (2 are US citizens) on trumped-up charges or no charges. They also maintain missiles aimed at Taiwan.

6

december: the last strong military action taken in defense of Taiwan was when Clinton sent warships into their area when the PRC was holding deliberately provocative military exercises. The clear point was: we’re here too. Don’t try anything stupid. To imply that Clinton’s policy was the same as that of the NYT editorial page is inaccurate.
Bush is, to my mind, simply stating out loud what everyone already knew. He’s also making it clear to the PRC that their atrocious behavior in the spy plane episode had a cost. Not to mention their holding of four American citizens, as you mentioned.

7

Perhaps you should explain this to Bush, I think he has stated fairly clearly that the spy plane incident should have no impact on policy respecting Taiwan. To make it impact that policy would be the height of stupidity so at least he got that part right.

This is certainly not something everyone knew. The response to an attack on taiwan would depend entirely on the circumstances and availability of military resources.

You have entirely failed to consider the impact on taiwanese politics in your analysis as well. Refusing to commit to the defence of Taiwan has considerable impact on how they view their relations with China. You may recall the last Taiwan election where an end to the one china policy was seriously put forward. Bush’s statement encourages that kind of policy change.

You may also consider why the pentagon had to be contacted after this interview to be warned about his bombshell statements.

8

Of course Bush is going to say the spy plane incident should have no effect.
Of course it will. The height of stupidity would consist of letting the incident pass without a cost.
They still have the plane, BTW. And we still haven’t resumed flying those missions. Seems to me the Chinese have de facto gotten something out of taking that plane. Seems to me, also, that Bush is, de facto, getting something back.

9

**

I’m not sure why you think he fumbled.

**

Sure there is justification or haven’t you been following China’s saber rattling in that area for the past couple of years?

I’m not a huge Bush fan but I support his statement. In fact I look forward to Taiwan one day proclaiming their independence from China and I would support whatever US intervention necessary for them to be their own nation.

Marc

10

December: The point of “strategic ambiguity” is to discourage Taiwan from declaring themselves independent. Absent a Taiwanese declaration of independence, a PRC invasion is unlikely, provided Taiwan is well-armed.

MGibson: I’m not sure if it was a gaffe or not. I hope it was, since I support the “strategic ambiguity” position. Certain later statements by the administration (specifically those of C. Rice) may imply that there has been no substantial change in policy. (The administration is merely stating that it takes the 1979 Taiwan security act seriously.)

Now some hawks have argued that the time for “strategic ambiguity” has passed, that the Chinese build-up suggests that some parts of the Chinese leadership are considering an invasion. I confess a certain lack of knowledge on this point.

However, if those hawks are correct, I believe it is inappropriate to make such a substantial change to US policy without consulting Congress and our allies. And it is odd to promise submarines to Taiwan that we may not be able to deliver.

Then again, perhaps Bush only wanted to take a baby step: perhaps the new policy really is, “ambiguous strategic ambiguity”.

We may disagree here. I support the status quo: Taiwan has de facto independence, eventual reunification remains a possibility, but only following substantial democratization within China, and the Taiwanese dispute gives Tibet a very small amount of leverage. Not to mention the humanitarian benefits of peace.

11

warned Taiwan not to declare independence.
It they declared independence and then China blockaded or invaded Taiwan, our support, even after Bush’s statement, would be in question.

12

Yes, but IIRC, in a seperate statement.

I think Bush spoke off the cuff, saying in his own fashion what everyone in the administration has known - We will defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack - but without the disclaimers or ambiguity given to public statements on this topic (the disclaimer being - as long as Taiwan doesn’t provoke it by declaring independence).

He gets to his advisors and they say “what the fuck did you just do? You just told Taiwan to go ahead and declare independence and will send out the army to support them!” So he comes back with the “Taiwan shouldn’t declare independence” piece of the statement.

This is a tightrope, don’t doubt for a minute that there are powerful forces in Taiwan that want to declare independence and powerful forces in China ready to invade.

13

I agree that what you have written is conventional wisdom. Of course, Taiwan shows no indication of any imminent declaration of independence.

Question – why should the U.S. care whether Taiwan declares independence. I understand that it would peeve the PRC, but why should our policy be designed around that goal.

14

MGibson:

You’re actually looking forward to World War III? OK, whose sons and daughters lives are you so willing to sacrifice, mine or yours?

Duhbya is more than willing to supply Taiwan with offensive weapons, i.e. submarines. Why should the PRC wait for that to happen before they attack? MGibson, unless Duhbya gets real smart real soon, I’m afraid you dreams will soon become the world’s worst nightmare.

15

Imagine the headlines:

TAIWAN CONQUERS MAINLAND CHINA WITH EIGHT OBSOLETE SUBMARINES!

Seriously, all of Taiwan’s weapons are defensive, because there’s no way they would ever attack the PRC; they could never hope to win a war against them. BTW as a US tax-payer I’d be thrilled to see Taiwan actually pay us money for these useless vessels.

16

**

Well I’m not all that convinced that WWIII would result from such an action. And to be honest a war with China is about the only way I’d be willing to enlist in the armed forces.

China’s not in a real great position to attack right now. But who knows about 10 years from now? Why not provide Taiwan, who will pay for the goods, with the teeth necessary to defeat Chinese aggression?

Marc

17

Forgive the hijack but I’m curious about this statement. My understanding ( And I may well be mistaken ) was that the US wasn’t planning on selling old American subs ( are any of our old conventional subs still operational? I thought we abandoned building them some decades ago? ), but rather facilitating the sale of modern European diesel/electric designed machines. And it was my understanding that these subs are quite effective, especially given the limited theatre of the Taiwan strait, which doesn’t require high endurance machines. In fact I seem to recall there was some controversy in certain circles about the US abandoning the construction of conventional subs way back when, because in certain circumstances the have some small advantages over nuclear designs ( and one big one in that they’re significantly cheaper to build ) - They’re supposedly quieter at rest for one thing.

Now I freely admit the state of my technical knowledge is a couple of decades obsolete ( my interest in military technology peaked back in the early eighties ), so I’d appreciate any correction on the above points :slight_smile: .

  • Tamerlane
18

So if – and I’m being very hypothetical here – if Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and North and South Carolina suddenly decide to cede from the United States as the New Confederate Union, and the Chinese government offered to sell them nuclear weapons to defend themselves from “Yankee aggression”, you’d be entirely in favor of it?

(Yeah, I know, there’s no way this is ever going to happen. I just wanted to paint the Taiwan situation from a different POV)

19

I think Bush got asked a question by a reporter without a teleprompter in front of him. He got the broad strokes right, but in the history of US/China/Taiwan relations, nuances take on an almost obscene proportion. Witness the brouhaha over “apology” versus “regret.” China US relations are a pretty complicated dance and Bush is a raw newcomer, so pardon not speaking according to form. This is not a change in China US relations.

You’ll also notice that Bush did not agree to sell Taiwan the Ageis class destroyers with the advanced radar detection and targeting capability. Instead he sold 4 old destroyers (that were earmarked for the Shah of Iran, I believe) and unilaterally agreed that the Europeans would sell some old submarines. Don’t worry, the deal on Most Favored Nation, WTO, the plane and the Beijing Olympics has been made in the backroom already.

China has made it clear that they would take back Taiwan by force should the Taiwanese unilaterally declare independance. Is this bluster? No one really wants to find out at the moment. The risk of military action is reducing over time as China modernizes and the leadership is replaced with increasingly younger, more worldly people.

Keep in mind that if China really wanted to, they could have retaken the few islands that Taiwan still holds right off of the cost of Fujian province. Just like China could have turned the water off on Hong Kong and retaken HK long before the 1997 handover. However, China has not yet taken such a step.

The best thing Taiwan could do is allow Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan. I don’t know the exact number but only a handful of Mainland Chinese have been allowed into Taiwan. The average Mainlander here knows nothing about Taiwan except for the propagana drilled into them since the cradle. The average Taiwanese they know is the stereotypical whore chasing rapacious robber baron small factory owner. After living in Taiwan for 5 years, I think they are some of the best people I’ve ever known.

Could China retake Taiwan? No, not at this time. Taiwan is a fortified island that’s spent the last 50 some odd years preparing for an invasion. China doesn’t have much in the way of a navy or landing craft capable of launching a physical invasion.

Finally, something that is never mentioned in the press anywhere is that Taiwan has the bomb. Oops, sorry, this is the great debates, for proof let’s just say that Taiwan has the money, one of the highest population of PhD’s in the world, have been in a declared state of war for 50 plus years and at least 4 nuclear power plants. Suffice to say, given this scenario and a hostile entity just across the water, whaddya think? I’m certain that the Taiwanese have made it abundantly clear that if push comes to shove, they would take out Guangzhou, Xiamen, Shanghai (where I live) and Beijing. Maybe more. Of course, Taiwan would then be obliterated, but this is high stakes poker.

20

Cite? I was there at the time, I don’t remember any of the three major parties putting forward such a proposal, “seriously” or otherwise. Things were tense enough there as it was.

Maybe for the same reason that Jack Welch might not necessarily check with some plant manager in Detroit before (say) deciding to spin off some unit of GE. Last time I checked, GWB is the boss–if the President says “jump”, the Pentagon’s only proper response is to say "how high, sir?