Proposed sale of Taiwan raises no laughs
By Jens Kastner
TAIPEI - A recent New York Times op-ed article by Paul Kane, a former
international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, has hit a raw
nerve. Kane called on United States President Barack Obama to end military
support for Taiwan in exchange for China forgiving the US$1.14 trillion of
American debt it currently holds.
"With a single bold act, President Obama could correct the country's course,
help assure his re-election, and preserve our children's future," Kane baffled
his readers.
As absurd the plea appears, and although the author has since declared his
op-ed a satire, it seems the idea was not as fanciful as it seemed.
In recent months, the pros of abandoning Taiwan for the sake of better US-China
relations have been increasingly and frankly
addressed in US academic circles, while moves by the Obama administration have
also taken that direction. The actual "selling" of long-time ally Taiwan to
China remains a bizarre thought, but a different wind has been blowing from
Washington towards Taipei recently.
Two months have passed since the Obama administration announced its decision to
deny Taipei's request for new F-16 fighter jets. Back then, many observers took
the rejection as a sign that Washington had begun kow-towing to Beijing over
Taiwan, and that it would eventually do likewise in other regional rows
involving China. However, recent developments belie this notion.
Obama last week announced a new security agreement with Australia, which will
deploy US Marines Corps, naval ships and aircraft in the north of that country.
In the same breath he declared the US military would make a presence and
missions in the Asia-Pacific region its top priority.
Obama furthermore brought into focus increased US naval ship visits and
training in the Philippines and Singapore, cooperation with Indonesia to fight
piracy and with Thailand for disaster relief and also surprised by emphasizing
India's role in the region's security. The US president moreover vowed military
support for the Philippines, announced that he would sell F-16C/Ds to Indonesia
- the very type of fighter jets he denies Taiwan - and even reaches out to
Myanmar, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton due to visit the country next
month.
While it's abundantly clear that all these gestures signal a significant
hardening in US policy towards China as Obama seeks winning over the region,
Taiwan is conspicuous by its absence in his speeches.
There was also a notable omission by Clinton. In a lengthy and important
commentary on Asia she wrote for the influential Foreign Policy's November
issue she discussed all significant Asian countries for the US, but no Taiwan.
Critics of Kane's op-ed, which called for "closed-door negotiations with
Chinese leaders to write off the US$1.14 trillion of American debt currently
held by China in exchange for a deal to end American military assistance and
arms sales to Taiwan and terminate the current United States-Taiwan defense
arrangement by 2015", argued that no US government should ever consider such a
deal.
They said the suggestion that the US would sacrifice a free and democratic
Taiwan to an undemocratic, authoritarian China was akin to suggesting that the
US ditch Israel to gain favors from the Arab world and avoid a confrontation
with Iran.
They also said Kane was advocating that Obama "sell his soul, and America's
along with it". Others recalled that the last time the US tried to abandon
Taiwan - in 1979 when Jimmy Carter switched recognition from Taipei to Beijing
- the island began trying to get its hands on nuclear weapons.
To grasp the idea behind Kane's proposal, Asia Times Online interviewed John
Copper, a Stanley J Buckman professor of international studies at Rhodes
College in Memphis, Tennessee. Copper said that while Kane's piece comes across
as rather radical and absurd, it fits with articles in liberal media and
academic publications of late that have suggested that Obama boost his
electoral chances by abandoning Taiwan.
"Kane, like writers of the other articles that call upon Washington to dump
Taiwan, perceives, no doubt correctly, that president Obama despises Taiwan,"
Copper said.
Copper alleges that Obama personally has little interest in this part of the
world. "As an uber-liberal president, Barack Obama doesn't care for Asians who
he sees as traditional and conservative. He has had little interaction with the
Asia region notwithstanding its huge importance."
Copper explained why he believed Obama in particular disliked Taiwan,
"Democrats believe that George W Bush liked and supported Taiwan - despite him
having had serious problems with president Chen Shui-bian. [Republican] Senator
John McCain, during the 2008 campaign, pledged he would come to Taiwan's aid if
need be and employ the US military to do so. Also that Taiwan is governed by
the 'right-wing' Nationalist Party, or KMT [Kuomintang], makes Obama not liking
Taiwan."
Copper cited evidence that he says suggests Obama would prefer to get rid of
the island.
"Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama proposed talks between top
military brass from China and Taiwan. As it was US policy up to that time not
to pressure Taiwan or to mediate in China-Taiwan relations, many observers took
Obama's action as favoring unification on China's terms."
Copper recalled that in 2009, Obama, during his first visit to China, mentioned
the three communiques that served as a basis for US-China relations. "All of
them favor China over Taiwan. He did not mention the Taiwan Relations Act,
which favors Taiwan and has higher legal status than those communiques."
According to Copper, the proposed US-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement with Taiwan
has become a dead issue during Obama's term. That for the past two years, Obama
has sent no top official to Taiwan and Taiwan was not been mentioned in any
speech by a top official on Asia policy must also be taken as clear indicators,
Copper said.
The emergence of Kane's opinion piece is therefore something consequential,
Copper holds. "Kane is no doubt aware of some or most of this."
Another observer of Taiwanese affairs disagrees. Gerrit van der Wees of the
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a Washington-based advocacy group that
promotes Taiwanese independence, says Kane's op-ed lacks substance, and that
the author wrote about something on which he has no clue.
"It is such an outrageous article by someone who seems totally unfamiliar with
the issues involved," Van der Wees told Asia Times Online. "As a marine who
fought in Iraq, Mr Kane should have shown some more sense."
Jens Kastner is a Taipei-based journalist.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
