Today, most US experts on international relations assert that the Taiwan question is a flashpoint between China and the United States. Regarding how to deal with this issue, American experts can be divided into two groups: hawks and doves. Because both the hawks and doves have a mistaken understanding of China, their proposals for resolving the Taiwan question are outside the fundamental interests of their country.
To the doves, Taiwan’s strategic value to the US has been much overrated. Moreover, the US may lose a Sino-US war. Such a war could quickly become nuclear, with irreparable catastrophe for both countries and the world. They believe the most sensible approach is for Washington to maintain “strategic ambiguity” on the Taiwan question so that Beijing cannot be sure whether the US will send troops to protect the island should Beijing decide to take back the island by force, making Beijing hesitant to take such a drastic move.
Pundits such as Bonnie S Glaser have asserted: “Washington cannot make its willingness to defend Taiwan unconditional. Rather, the United States should reserve the latitude to judge whether Taipei’s policies are consistent with US interests and the region’s peace and security.” Michael J Mazarr warned: “Given the many domestic problems confronting the United States, devoting scarce dollars to defending Taiwan is arguably not the best way to make the country safer, more prosperous, or more competitive with China.” Charles L Glaser put it more bluntly: “For a declining power, the best option may be to cut back on its commitments. In East Asia, that would mean … letting go of Taiwan.”
The view of Michael D Swaine and Andrew Bacevich best summarizes the dovish stance. They argued that the US should seek to stabilize the Taiwan situation and other potential political-military sources of conflict through a clearer understanding of red lines and revitalizing the US’ “one China policy”, and that the US should end any intention to intervene militarily in a Taiwan-mainland conflict. They reckon that US intervention would almost certainly lead to a major war and quite possibly a defeat for the US.
In short, for doves, since sending troops to protect Taiwan is not a reasonable choice, Washington should warn Beijing not to use force against Taiwan; if Beijing does not comply, it will face the most severe financial and economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation from the US and its allies. They assert that the US needs to strengthen Taiwan’s defense capabilities through arms sales and training of Taiwan’s military, and that the US must also improve its economic, trade and technological ties with Taiwan so that the island has more financial resilience to deal with Beijing’s “economic coercion”.
On the contrary, the hawks believe Taiwan’s strategic value to the US is unparalleled. If the US “loses” Taiwan, its military advantages, economic interests, national reputation and credibility with its allies in the Indo-Pacific region will be substantially impaired. The hawks are confident that China will undoubtedly lose in a war between the two countries. Hence, they insist that Washington should adopt a “strategic clarity” stance, making it clear to Beijing that should it use force against Taiwan, the US will crush the Chinese mainland completely.
Richard Haass and David Sacks insisted that “Washington needs a policy of ‘strategic clarity’. … The best way to reduce the risk of war would be to inform China that the United States would respond to an attack against Taiwan with all the tools at its disposal, including severe economic sanctions and military force.” Hal Brands and Michael Beckley go even further: “If China crippled US conventional forces in East Asia, the United States would have to decide whether to save Taiwan by using tactical nuclear weapons against Chinese ports, airfields, or invasion fleets.”
For the hawks, the priority is to quickly reinforce Taiwan’s military strength, including adopting the so-called “porcupine strategy”. A recent report from the California-based think tank and research institute RAND implores: “Taiwan can and should do more to field forces capable of countering an invasion by the forces of the mainland. … Taiwan needs more survivable and lethal systems, and it needs them in greater numbers. … The US government can help Taiwan’s armed forces acquire these systems through technology transfer, arms sales, and grants. Equally important, US military personnel should increase the pace and scope of their training and engagements with counterparts in Taiwan, focusing on improving skills and interoperability in sensing and targeting, precision fires and movement, battlefield communications, and urban warfare.”
Both the hawks and the doves should realize that no matter who eventually wins or loses, the US will be hit hard, other major powers will rise on the ruins of the US, and the US global hegemony will end. These will make the US think twice before making irreversible and fatal decisions on Taiwan
The main difference between doves and hawks is whether the US should intervene militarily in the Taiwan Strait when Beijing uses nonpeaceful means to attain national reunification. Undoubtedly, both regard Taiwan as an “independent political entity” and are unwilling to accept Taiwan as an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China. They refuse to regard China’s reunification as China’s internal affair. Instead, they see Beijing’s efforts at national reunification as “aggression” against Taiwan and “a border change between countries”. A recent report of the Council on Foreign Relations declared: “In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, if China were to absorb Taiwan against the will of the Taiwan people, it would be yet another demonstration that countries can unilaterally redraw borders, further undermining the most basic tenet of international rules and norms.”
The hawks and doves do not want to see a reunified China but are reluctant to say it openly. For them, it is in the best strategic interest of the US to maintain the long-term separation of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, allowing the US to use the island as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” to contain China. The “solutions” they advocate to “resolve” the Taiwan question aim at preventing and deterring Beijing from taking back Taiwan. At the same time, they want Washington to convince Beijing that it will stick to its “commitment” to the “one-China policy” so that Beijing has no urgency to use force to stop Taiwan from breaking away.
In fact, since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the consistent position of the US has been to obstruct China’s reunification. This position has remained unchanged, notwithstanding the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The US’ position on Taiwan is based primarily on domestic laws or government decisions rather than international laws or agreements. Although a series of documents with global legal force, such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, and the 1945 Japanese-surrender clause, have authoritatively confirmed that China has regained Taiwan, today the US’ official position is still that Taiwan’s legal status is uncertain according to the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco wherefrom China was excluded.
At the same time, the US has intermittently prioritized the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and the 1982 Six Assurances issued by the US to Taiwan over the three joint communiques signed by China and the US. These legal shenanigans by the US give it the “legal” pretext to treat Taiwan as an “independent political entity” and obstruct China’s reunification. They also become the “laws” that mandate the US to continue making defense commitments, sell weapons, provide military training to Taiwan, strengthen official exchanges with the island, and refrain from pressuring Taiwan to negotiate with Beijing over national reunification.
Although the US constantly proclaims that it “sincerely hopes” that China will reunify peacefully, it does not refrain from setting up new barriers. The most significant obstacles are the US position that cross-Strait reunification must hinge on the will of the people of Taiwan and that the US is committed to come to Taiwan’s defense. In April 2001, then-US president George W Bush said that the US had an obligation to go to Taiwan’s defense. President Joe Biden suggested several times in the last couple of years that the US has a treaty commitment to defend Taiwan.
Washington has long ostensibly supported the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. Yet, according to Ryan Hass et al, it had been years since a US official stated that the solution had to be “consistent with the wishes and best interests of the people of Taiwan”. During the George W Bush administration, the policy was revised, so it called for a peaceful resolution “consistent with the wishes of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait”. Biden told reporters in November 2021 that Taiwan “makes its own decisions” and that the island is “independent”. In any case, the Biden administration has discarded the notion that the PRC government represents the interests of the people living on Taiwan Island.
The hawks and the doves think that Beijing understands that taking back Taiwan in a nonpeaceful way will bring disaster. They believe that so long as Beijing is intimidated sufficiently, Washington keeps a firm promise that it will abide by the “one China policy”, and refrains from provoking Beijing over the Taiwan question and helps substantially strengthen Taiwan’s defense forces, then Beijing will reluctantly give up its goal of national reunification and allow Washington to use Taiwan to contain its rise and threaten its security.
However, future developments will prove that this is nothing but the wishful thinking of the hawks and doves. They will also learn that they have grossly underestimated the Chinese people’s strong aspirations, sense of historical mission, determination, and growing ability to seek national reunification.
In any case, China’s position on national reunification is clear-cut and has never wavered. On Aug 10, 2022, Beijing issued a white paper on the Taiwan question, which clearly states that “resolving the Taiwan question and realizing China’s complete reunification is a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation. It is indispensable for the realization of China’s rejuvenation. It is also a historic mission of the Communist Party of China”. To the Chinese people, national reunification is a matter of national honor, historic mission and national security. Expecting China to relinquish the cause of national reunification because of interest calculus or fear of sacrifice represents a gross misunderstanding of Chinese history and people by the hawks and doves. Today, under the leadership of the CPC, national reunification has entered an irreversible process. China already has sufficient military, diplomatic and economic capabilities to overcome the interference and obstruction of the US and the “Taiwan independence” forces, and can achieve complete national reunification in the foreseeable future. Both the hawks and the doves should realize that no matter who eventually wins or loses, the US will be hit hard, other major powers will rise on the ruins of the US, and the US global hegemony will end. These will make the US think twice before making irreversible and fatal decisions on Taiwan.
The author is a professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a consultant for the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
