In Defense Of Nothing

Composed for a 1971 Taiwanese film, 梅花 (Plum Blossom) artfully captures the Taiwanese sentiment of their political standing at the time. With flowing lyrics and an upbeat melody, the song paints a metaphor of the plum blossom, comparing the Taiwanese people to the flower’s resilience in the dead of Chinese winters. Indeed, at one point in the song, the artist even chooses to add in a line “有土地就有它” (If there is dirt, there is the blossom) The dirt referring to Taiwan, the song reflected a era where many looked longingly across the strait, sureful of a day where where the White Sun would one more rise over the mainland. But times change, and the people of Taiwan today no longer harbor the same sentiments. Ironically enough, the plum blossom, which is the national flower of Taiwan, does not even grow in Taiwan

On the contrary, it is now Chair

Taiwanese

And

David and Goliath, not deel

Today, Taiwan rests in a unique geopolitical limbo- akin to purgatory for countries. Recognized by 14 out of 193 members of the United Nations, Taiwan’s political being can be described as somewhat paradoxical. Without proper diplomatic ties to most countries, the island is forced to rely on a patchwork of informal and de facto embassies to carry out its international affairs. Even its closest ally, the United States, does not acknowledge the nation’s statehood. Indeed, the core pillar for US-Taiwan relations comes in the form of the aptly named, Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). Signed into effect in 1979, the act broadly defines how the United States approaches Taiwan today.

Perhaps one of the most important provisions of the act, and the reason for Taiwan’s unique position today is the implementation of strategic ambiguity. Referred to as the backbone of US-Taiwan security policy, strategic ambiguity directs that the US would abstain fom clarifying the conditions it would intervene, given a conflict involving Taiwan. In short, this strategy forces China to spin a “Wheel-of-War”, where a conflict with Taiwan may or may not invoke the wrath of the other global superpower.

However, this policy my change in the near future. In the past few years, China seems more intent on reigining in its “rouge province”. As the power of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) its military abilities now closely model the US in some measures, such as (Insert Source) As a result, Beijing has become increasingly aggressive in its cross-Strait exercises, flying bombing sorties and conducting training exercises deep into maritime areas that the Taiwanese claim as their own. More recently, a 27 plane strong PLA squadron was detected flying over Taiwan’s ADIZ, or the air defense identification zone. These flights pose a significant risk to the country, as they put many cities within range of Chinese attack. Admist the saber-rattling of the past year, calls have mounted from commentators in both Taipei and Washington for a new plan: Strategic Clarity (SC).

The premise of strategic clarity is straightfoward- it is simply the opposite of strategic ambiguity. In this case, the US would offer Taiwan an direct security guarantee, signaling that any conflict between the Strait would unquestionably bring American intervention. Proponents of this policy argue two points. First, they underscore that SC would reenforce the US’s commitmment to the Pacific region, and a second, a clear deterrent to any further Chinese provocations. Unfortunately, both the views are myopic in nature and geopolitically speaking, do not look more than two moves ahead on the chessboard. On face, SC seems like the intuitive option. Isn’t a definite answer always better than a maybe? The answer becomes clear when one analyzes the unique situation of Chinese-Taiwanese relations. Drafted with both parties’ interest in mind, strategic ambiguity aims to prevent unilateral action to be taken by either country. Consider a thought expierement where the United States declares a definite security agreement towards Taiwan, as the strategic clarity calls for.

On one side, US-American tensions are now vastly heightened. The Chinese view the supposed breakaway-state as a holdout from the century of humiliation, a period of time in which China underwent repeated conquest and subjugation by external powers. To declare direct support for the Taiwanese would legitimate the the US as a “enemy of nationalism”, and give credence to the Politsburo’s claim that the Americans are working against the rise of China. On the other side, the Taiwanese are now emboldened. With the backing of a strong power, hardline independents may feel as they can act more aggressively provoking China with a unilateral declaration of independence. As Bonnie Glaser, Senior Adviser for Asia and Director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies writes for Foreign Affairs, “If the United States extends an unqualified security commitment to Taiwan today, without the ability to make its threats credible, China could respond by mounting an attack”. The premise is simple. A direct decleration today may force Beijing to call the US’ bluff, for fear of losing the window of opportunity to which the US will have the bite to back its bark. Even if direct conflict is not intiated by China, the act of preparing for one is dangerous as well. A security commitmment to Taiwan could force both sides into an arms race, wherein either side overdevelops its forces in anticipation of the other’s, heightening the chance of conflict. Indeed, research published in the Journal of Peace Reasearch find that “an arms race increases the probability of war by 331%” (Rider et. al.) Outside of

So what should be done?

(Taiwanese History And current politicla situation)

(Strategic anbiguity Counterargument)

(Strategic Analysis of Taiwanese Politics)

Any war is a losing one.

(Analysis of Best Practices #1 imrove indigenous defenses)

To qu

The admission of a definite security guarantee to the nation-state of Taiwan by the US has long been a contentious issue throughout the state and into Taiwan as well. Indeed, when President Biden declared on October 21st that the United States would come to the defense of the small island nation. However, the White House quickly later backtracked, stating officially that the US holds no such international policy within its hand. Indeed, it does not. When it comes to cross-strait relations, the US has followed a deliberate policy of strategic ambiguity for the past fifty years. For the US, the premise is quite simple: the US does not explicitly state whether it would come to the defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack, leaving the possibility up to the foreign adversary to figure out. While there is a growing local population that calls for such a security guarantee to put into explicit words, this is not however in the best interest of the US or Taiwan. I believe that locally, the Taiwanese people and government should support this policy, to ensure the security of the state for the short and the long term.

Culture and History: Taiwan has had a tumultuous history, in its short history as a pseudo country in the world’s eyes. Being first settled by indigenous peoples over 6000 years ago, Taiwan in recent years has seen its control passed on from Colonial Spanish and Netherlands to dynastic China, Imperial Japan, and finally the Republic of China, which rules the island today. Even within the segment of ROC’s rule, its history is storied, with periods of boom and bust. Starting out under martial law, the government remained under a dictatorship for over 20 years, enjoying the support of the US as it became a stalwart against communism under the Cold War era. Afterward, Taiwan underwent what is now known as the “Taiwan miracle” in which the economy rapidly developed as well as its democracy. Today, Taiwan holds a strong economy as thriving democracy.

Military/Geopolitical Posturing:

The People’s Republic of China (Mainland China) views Taiwan as a breakaway state to this date. It believes and has in its own policy that the government will eventually forcibly or peacefully reabsorb Taiwan to make a full China. Significant amounts of propaganda are put out in order to ensure that the population gives its hearty support to this policy. As China’s military power has been growing, its power now rivals the US, and as such its becoming increasingly aggressive in its cross straight exercises, sending flight sorties and training exercises deep into the maritime area that the Taiwanese claim as their own. Even current flights are sent deep into the ADIZ- or the air defense identification Zone. This leaves the Taiwanese people increasing worried over the defense of the nation over the PLA.

In this essay, I will focus on the perception of Taiwanese nationalism within the island-nation of Taiwan. The concept of Taiwan as a nation is heavily contested, both domestically and internationally. More importantly, I would like to focus on the distribution of geopolitical power that Mainland China has over Taiwan, and the issue with mandatory service in the scope of Taiwan. My initial argument is that the nation should choose to develop itself like Israel, maintaining a strong military as well as strategic ambiguity towards a security guarantee with the Untied States.