China, Taiwan and the USA

The United-States (at least its Federal government) is often accused of letting self-interested, primarily economic, considerations determine its foreign policy. So it has been tirelessly argued: the invasion of Iraq was all about oil; the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan was "really" about a US energy company building a natural gas pipeline through the country; its involvements in Central and South America over the last century due to imperialist dreams; its late entries into both World Wars seen as opportunistic gambits by power-hungry and hypocritical Presidents; even the tens of billions spenty (in todays dollars) to rebuild Europe after World War II have been reduced to the meanest of motives. I would instead argue that all these actions have been the result of an inevitable combination of self-interest and idealistic, liberal desires to change the world for the better. That to therefore reduce these, or any other historical event, to a purely materialist (generally Marxist) analysis is to overly simplify the true complexities of historical reality. One can certainly learn a lot from applying such analyses, but one must be aware at the same time of their limitations.

The USA's relations with Taiwan make particularly evident the sometimes poverty of this historical outlook. Taiwan is, of course, an island claimed by China as an indivisible part of itself, though it has only for a relatively brief time ever been under control of the government on the mainland (from 1683-1895). Since the Kuomintang (KMT) under Chiang Kai-Shek lost the Civil War to Mao Tse-Tung's Communists and fled to the island of Formosa in 1949 setting up the Republic of China (ROC) government there, the USA's foreign policy has changed from at first (from 1949-1972) refusing to recognize the People's Republic of China (PRC) Communist government - maintaining that the ROC rightfully represented China and had the right to its seat at the United-Nations even though it only controlled the now renamed island of Taiwan and a few other small islands off the coast of China - to an acknowledgement of the Communist Party's effective rule over all of mainland China and therefore its right to China's seat at the UN (1972) and for full diplomatic relations with the U.S. (1979). It has remained the foreign policy objective of the USA, however, to help Taiwan maintain its political independence from China despite its accession to China's insistence that Taiwan is but a "renegade" province that will eventually return to Chinese rule. This objective has been actively enforced; beginning with Harry Truman's sending of the 7th Fleet into the Taiwanese Strait in 1950 in order to forestall an expected Chinese invasion to Bill Clinton's deployment of two aircraft carrier groups to the straits in 1996 after China provocatively "test-fired" missiles over Taiwan during that year's Presidential election. The same year that the U.S. switched its diplomatic recognition to the PRC, the Taiwan Relations Act was passed stating, among other things, that the U.S. would consider "any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States."

Until 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War and its related geo-political concerns were the most obvious basis by which to understand Sino-U.S. relations. So the refusal of the U.S. to recognize the PRC until 1972 is explained by the former's militant anti-Communism, just as the then shift towards the PRC (in "Nixon going to China") was motivated by a long-overdue recognition of the non-monolithic nature of the Communist world - specifically the serious disagreements that had arisen between the PRC and the Soviet Union (resulting in border clashes in 1969) as well as with then North Vietnam - and therefore the attempt to play the different Communist blocs against each other to the USA's, and other non-communist countries, advantage.

These foreign policy considerations were undoubtedly the primary reason for the "thaw" between the USA and the PRC that began in the 70's, but one must wonder, given the reality of today, if far-sighted economic prognostications did not play some role. For China, with it's population of well over a billion, has become the economic success story of the last 20 years. Trade between the two countries has increased exponentially to the point where China, in order to keep the value of its currency the yuan artificially low against the dollar, has become the main buyer of US currency in order to keep its exports cheap and economy expanding. The details of this are in themselves fascinatingly frightening (perhaps to be addressed in a future article), but what should be understood is how economically important China is to the USA.

Not that Taiwan is not of course. The official web site of the Taiwanese government (at http://www.roc-taiwan.org/usoffice/dc.htm) states that:

The trade in commercial goods between Taiwan and the United States totaled US$56.35 billion in 2004. Of that, U.S. exports to Taiwan accounted for US$21.73 billion, while U.S. imports from Taiwan totaled US$34.62 billion, resulting in a U.S. deficit of US$14.11 billion. Taiwan was the United States' eighth largest trading partner, its ninth largest export market, and its eighth largest source of imports.
Taiwan's investment in the United States totaled US$557 million in 2004, while U.S. investment in Taiwan totaled US$353 million.

And this with a population of only 23 million people.

Compared to trade with China, however, these numbers pale in significance. Economically there is no doubt which "country" (in scare quotes because Taiwan is not even recognized as a country by most countries in the world) is more important to the USA: clearly China; and yet, Taiwan remains a nearly perpetual stumbling block in China-U.S. relations. Here is a April 8, 2002 commentary (available online at http://english.people.com.cn/200204/07/93630.) from the Communist Party controlled People's Daily:

On April 9, the 23rd anniversary of the United States' troublemaking Taiwan Relations Act, the US Congress is due to unveil a 70-member Taiwan caucus. Most congressional caucuses are issue-based or for particular racial groups but this one will be devoted solely to Taiwan, an inalienable part of China. It is claimed that the caucus will serve as an official channel for legislators from both the United States and the island to exchange ideas. Such a provocative move will obviously overshadow the renewed Sino-US relations. On a more dangerous level, it may provide fodder to Taiwan's military forces and play into the hands of Taiwan separatist extremists... This comes at a time when there have been conspicuous signs of ever-increasing US-Taiwan military ties... In most cases, those who sow the wind will reap a whirlwind. The robust military build-up may not bring the so-called balance but menace instead cross-Straits peace and stability. Helping Taiwan build its military muscle will only foment pro-independence forces. Since the latest remarks and events may give these forces the impression that the United States is on their side and ready to provide military protection, they may become provocative enough to push the island to the edge.

In fact, the Taiwan Caucus of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives has since grown to 151 members, while the newer Taiwan Caucus in the Senate has a respectable 24. These are remarkably high numbers of U.S. government lawmakers to be interested and concerned with its fate despite the obvious displeasure it gives to the economically dominant power. Numerous pieces of legislation have been passed, primarily in the House, calling on the U.S. Administration to support Taiwan against the nearly incessant bullying of Beijing and to change the "One China" policy, in place since 1949, to a "One China-One Taiwan" policy thus affirming the latter's right to self-determination as expressed in the UN Charter. What explains this apparent concern for a "country" whose defense is seemingly so contrary to the economic self-interest of the U.S.?

Of course, the U.S. Administration must strike a much more delicate balance with the PRC - recognizing its formidable political, economic and military power - but no liberalistically inclined individual should think that the U.S. should not help protect Taiwan's sovereignty. Though the economic reforms of the last twenty years in China have been vast, political reform has been strangled since the Tianenmen Square Massacre of June 4, 1989 (in which the Chinese government still maintains that no one was killed) and internal dissent continues to be brutally supressed to this day. Taiwan, on the other hand, has, since the lifting of Martial Law in 1987, become a remarkably free and democratic country with multi-party, competitive elections; a vibrant, free press; and (in great contrast to the persecution of Falun Gong/Dafa and the near-genocidal policies directed at the religion and culture of Tibet by the Chinese Government) freedom of religious belief.

Consistent with its neo-imperial ambitions, however, China, in March of this year, passed an Anti-Seccession Law that states:

In the event that the 'Taiwan independence' secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

That this completely contradicts the UN Charter and its (Article 1, section 2) affirmation of the right of the "self-determination of peoples" seems to not worry the PRC who insist instead that the issue of Taiwan is a domestic one; that Article 2, section 7 explicitly states that, "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter" and that therefore the right to self-determination does not in this case apply. The falseness of this argument is made evident by the obvious inapplicability of Taiwan being now "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of China. The PRC has, instead, in its history never controlled Taiwan; an obvious requirement for any territory to be accurately referred to as the "domestic jurisdiction" of a state. Though Taiwan is not even a member of the United-Nations (it applies for membership each year only to be rejected by China and its allies), it clearly has the right, based on its effective control of its territory for over 50 years, to determine its own fate. That it is a free and democratic country, as opposed to the authoritarian part-communist, part-fascist dictatorship of the PRC is yet another reason that it should be defended from the increasingly desperate seeming nationalism of the mainland.

If China were to actually invade Taiwan, however, the actions of the U.S. would undoubtedly be the most crucial determining factor in what the final result would be. Though comments have been made in China threatening to use nuclear weapons if the U.S. were to involve itself in a war across the Taiwan Straits, it seems unlikely that China would take such a step knowing the massive repercussions that would surely result. A much more likely scenario is a massive conventional surprise attack aiming to knock out Taiwan's defences and a near-simultaneous amphibious invasion designed to affect a fait d'accompli before anyone (meaning the U.S.) could involve itself.

Whether most Americans would actually want their country to get involved in a war with China to defend Taiwan is doubtful given the almost certain loss of life in the tens of thousands (at least) that would inevitably result, but that does not alter the rightness of such an undertaking. China would clearly be the agressor and in the spirit, if not the letter, of the post-World War II consensus that brought about the creation of the United-Nations Taiwan would deserve help to defend itself as did South Korea when North Korea invaded and nearly conquered the entire country in 1950 only to be saved from the last 53 years of totalitarian dictatorship, famine and slave-camps of Kim-il Sung Il and Kim-Jung Il by the actions of then U.S. President Harry Truman (a fact that many on the Left seem to forget in their Chomskian/Zinn-like crusades to paint the entirety of American's history of foreign policy actions in the worst possible light).

That the U.S. government (at least part of it) shows such concern for Taiwan to the point of being willing to go to war with China to defend it despite the obvious reluctance of the American people to fight and the far greater importance of China to the health of the U.S. economy is curious to say the least. How to explain something so seemingly contrary to U.S. self-interest?

One might argue that it expresses America's hegemonic impulses; that though the economies of the U.S. and China are increasingly dependent on each other, the U.S. sees China as its main emerging rival to its now singular Superpower status and that its support for Taiwan is merely a way of "containing" China's growing international ambitions. This is undoubtedly partly true as there has certainly been an increase in tensions due to China's increasing power, yet the price that could potentially be payed by the U.S. for its support of Taiwan is so much greater than whatever benefits such a containment might bring about that this explanation is far from adequate.

China is in many ways the perfect embodiment of the kind of country many on the Left have criticized the U.S. for supporting over the last 50 or so years: one with a capitalist economy of sorts (though the State still largely controls the economy through the many companies it continues to own; primarily in the banking system) that is very much addicted to American consumer culture, yet combined with a repressive, authoritarian political system. Taiwan is also very much addicted to American consumer culture, but it, on the other hand, is a free and democratic country that should at last be recognized as one, and be defended militarily if need be, despite the threats from the dictators of Beijing. Thankfully American resolve has so far been sufficient to dissuade China from imposing its tyranny on yet another part of the world, but as of yet few other countries have shown any support for Taiwan; primarily because of their having been cowed by China. That it is a group of U.S. Representatives and Senators in their respective Taiwan Caucuses (do such things exist in any other country in the world?), however, who do more to defend Taiwan than anyone else in the world is a testament not to America's imperialist ambitions, but rather, I would offer as the best explanation, to a sincere concern of many in the U.S. government with the rights and freedoms of the Taiwanese people. And so they, and all other liberally inclined people, should be.