Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Screenshot
A RECENT OP-ED in the New York Times by Jennifer Kavanaugh blames Taiwan for stoking aggression against China and suggests that Donald Trump engage in dealmaking to solve the issue.
As pointed out by Michelle Kuo and others, the op-ed takes little account of Taiwanese people’s viewpoints. Taiwan is simply discussed in terms of what Beijing and Washington want. Likewise, Taiwan is seen as provoking China without naming what it is that Taiwan has done–Lai Ching-te is singled out as though his presidency has committed some blameworthy aggression toward China, though obviously it is Taiwan that is the one conducting military drills toward China.
Indeed, Kavanaugh suggests that the initial provocation was the Taiwanese people electing Tsai Ing-wen as president. In this sense, Kavanaugh has already deeply internalized Beijing’s view that Taiwan is part of China–merely the act of the Taiwanese people deciding on their choice of president is already provocative.
Yet Kavanaugh mischaracterizes the Tsai administration and Lai administration–which have both maintained a delicate balancing act toward China and did not make moves toward formal independence. She mischaracterizes as well as the US position on Taiwan. After all, the US has not recognized Taiwan as being part of China, as it acknowledges the Chinese position but does not accept it.
Kavanaugh goes on to argue that the US should abandon Taiwan’s efforts to maintain its existing international space, effectively arguing for the abandonment of Taiwan. Though Kavanaugh makes some gestures in the direction of the US seeking commitments from Beijing over Taiwan, it is notable that it never occurs to her that Taiwan has good reason not to trust Xi Jinping–or Trump, for that matter. Taiwan is always discussed only as a chess piece between larger powers, not as having a will of its own.
All the typical arguments from Americans, then. The view is again that America is in a position to make grand deals, which smaller countries must accept. Nowhere is there the consideration that appeasement has historically never worked out.
Still, Kavanaugh’s argumentation is in line with elements of the Trump administration. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, for example, appears to be someone else who is looking for excuses to drop US support of Taiwan, even while claiming otherwise. One can observe such attitudes at work with regard to how Colby has treated Ukraine, seeking to suspend arms shipments. Sometimes this has hinged on the argument that Taiwan does not do enough for its own defense and so should not warrant US support, never mind that Taiwan faces an existential threat and already does what it can.
Framing the Lai administration as overly provocative proves another means of scrabbling for some justification to drop US support of Taiwan. Kavanaugh’s argument, then, reflects that there is a political tendency on the rise that calls for dropping even the current level of US support for Taiwan, framing minor actions as overly provocative.
Indeed, there seems to be no accounting in Kavanaugh’s argumentation as to how China might be emboldened by the US withdrawing support of Taiwan, and this would lead to a catastrophic war breaking out that would have profound global impacts, US involvement or not. Kavanaugh’s view only sees China as reactive, bizarrely never accounting for Chinese agency, in suggesting that only the US and Taiwan are provocative. In this sense, Kavanaugh’s arguments are the usual boilerplate arguments for isolationism, argumentation that almost always only ever sees the US as the prime mover in the world and never accounts for China having its own political agenda.
Arguments like Kavanaugh’s seem set to be the norm, given the current political climate in the environment. Taiwan should be keenly aware of rising calls for isolationism in the US, then.