WeChat Official Account: Xinhua Chinese
During the US presidential election, influential figures and think tanks in the United States have spoken out to protect Taiwan. Vice President Pence during the Trump era said that Taiwan is a barrier against China, and Taiwan's fall would lead to nuclear competition, so Taiwan must not fall.
Prominent American scholars and former senior officials of the Department of Defense have written articles stating that "Taiwan is the Berlin of today." China's unification of Taiwan is the most significant event that promotes nuclear proliferation in Asia, and the United States cannot afford to lose Taiwan.
Other important think tanks and scholars have also expressed their support for the United States to protect Taiwan.
The reason why Pence, who has been silent for a long time, has spoken out publicly seems to be aimed at Trump's policy towards Taiwan. Trump recently said in an interview with Bloomberg News, "Taiwan is 9,500 miles away. It is only 68 miles away from China," and Taiwan has taken away all of America's chip business, so Taiwan should pay for its defense to the United States.
Bloomberg News pointed out in its report that Trump believes that defending a small island on the other side of the earth is actually difficult. Pence's strong criticism of Trump's remarks is a typical representation of isolationism, reflecting a dangerous and narrow understanding of America's role in the world and ignorance of the far-reaching consequences of America's disengagement from the world.
Pence and Ed Feulner, the founder of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), wrote an article in The Washington Post titled "We Cannot Give in to Isolationists. Taiwan Must Not Fall," quoting a top-secret document from General MacArthur in 1950, warning that allowing China to dominate Taiwan would seriously harm America's strategic interests and would be the most serious disaster.
Pence and Feulner said that for more than 70 years, the United States has followed General MacArthur's warning, and supporting Taiwan has always been the cornerstone of America's strategy in the Indo-Pacific region. They explained at length that Taiwan is a barrier against China and communism, and if the United States abandons Taiwan, America's security guarantees will be seen as empty promises, endangering the security and prosperity of the United States and the free world.
In their article, the two expressed their concern about the emergence of a new and disturbing isolationism within the Republican Party, advocating for the abandonment of Taiwan and other allies. They called on the American people not to give in to isolationists and to never let Taiwan fall.
It is puzzling why Pence and Feulner believe that "Taiwan's fall would lead to nuclear competition"? They spent a lot of space explaining this viewpoint, but the author noticed that they did not provide any evidence to support their claims, only speculation.
A recent research report titled "Taiwan's Annexation: The United States and Its Allies Cannot Retreat from this Failure" by Professor Alishin from the U.S. Naval War College and Gab Collins, a research fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University and former China analyst at the Department of Defense, also stated that this would intensify the nuclear competition among the three major countries: China, the United States, and Russia. India, Pakistan, as well as Japan, South Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel may also be forced to develop or increase their nuclear capabilities. However, they did not specifically explain why this situation would occur.
It is worth noting that this viewpoint has recently gained widespread support in the U.S. political and think tank circles. The rhetoric is strong and alarmist, deliberately causing panic among U.S. allies in the West to jointly respond to China's unification.
The report compares Taiwan to the former West Berlin, concluding that this Taiwan Strait conflict is crucial to the key interests of the United States and its allies, the post-World War II international order, and the peace, prosperity, and freedom it supports.
The article warns that if China successfully annexes Taiwan, it will bring catastrophic consequences to the United States. U.S. policymakers must take urgent deterrent actions.
This viewpoint has received widespread support from U.S. think tanks.
Assistant Professor Brian from the U.S. Naval War College appreciates that it is appropriate to compare Taiwan to West Berlin. He said that the Taiwan issue has become a symbol of U.S.-China relations: "The future of Taiwan Island will be seen as a benchmark, revealing which side, Beijing or Washington, is more successful in adhering to, maintaining, and expanding its vision of international political operations." He pointed out that if China takes over Taiwan, the biggest impact will be the destruction of the international order that the United States has built and led since 1945. He said that if the United States intervenes but still fails to maintain Taiwan's political autonomy, it may seriously damage Washington's credibility, confidence, and reputation in maintaining the existing international order, "especially after Russia's expansion of aggression against Ukraine in 2022."
Brian is also concerned that this may lead many countries to adopt a more pro-China policy and reject the norms and values traditionally supported by the United States, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other countries, including freedom of navigation and the protection of human rights.
Senior researcher Yao from the East-West Center in Hawaii said that if China successfully "forcibly annexes" Taiwan, whether China defeats the United States in battle or the United States refuses to intervene, it will mark the end of the United States' strategic advantage in Asia. This will deal a heavy blow to the long-term plan of the United States to promote democratization globally.
"Is it worth it for the United States to send troops to Taiwan?"
"Taiwan Fallacy" quotes Biden as publicly stating four times that if Beijing uses force to attack Taiwan, the United States will send troops to defend Taiwan. But unfortunately, the White House later clarified that the U.S. policy towards Taiwan has not changed, and there are no plans to abandon the "strategic ambiguity" policy.
The first author of "Taiwan Fallacy," Collins, believes that compared to Ukraine and the Middle East, it is more worthwhile for the United States to use force to defend Taiwan. He calls on the Taiwanese people to learn from Israel's martial spirit. He said that in the Middle East, the United States has basically stated its willingness to use military force to protect the roughly 20% of global oil supplies that are transported from the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf region, but Taiwan accounts for about 90% of the world's advanced semiconductor production.
However, the article believes that there is no consensus among the American public on whether to send troops to defend Taiwan. Referring to a poll conducted by the Washington think tank "Defense Priorities," among more than 1,000 Americans surveyed last month, only 30% of respondents said that considering the possible costs, the United States should defend Taiwan and prevent China from invading. 44% of respondents strongly agreed (19%) or somewhat agreed (25%) that it is more important to avoid war with China than to prioritize Taiwan's political autonomy. 66% of respondents believed that the United States should require Taiwan to increase investment in countering China as a prerequisite for the United States' commitment to defend Taiwan.
U.S. national security experts believe that although Taiwan has extraordinary value to the United States, it is worrying that both Taiwan and the United States are currently unprepared in terms of collective morale and psychology and have not reached a social consensus to never compromise with the forces attacking Taiwan.
Brian believes that the psychological preparedness of the American people is far from sufficient: "The American people are simply not prepared (and have not been told to prepare) for a major power war, a conflict that would mobilize the resources of the republic, and whose intensity and duration may be unprecedented for several generations, perhaps requiring enormous sacrifices in manpower and resources."
Brian believes that the psychological cognition of the Taiwanese people is crucial, and the fundamental identity dispute must be resolved-who they are and what political entity (not necessarily the People's Republic of China) they are associated with politically. In his view, the Taiwanese people need to achieve some minimum level of unity and social cohesion on the question of "Who are we?" or "We are definitely not who?".
He once again proposed that Taiwan should fully adopt a "hedgehog" strategy and use asymmetric means to counter China's advantages. He also suggested the formation of some kind of civilian militia, increasing strategic reserves of food, fuel, and water, and preparing backup systems for network and physical attacks on critical infrastructure.
Collins called on the Taiwanese people to learn from Israel's martial spirit.
Jonathan Cafrey, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, recently published an article titled "Taiwan Fallacy" in Foreign Affairs, stating that Taiwan's role in containing China is limited, and the cost of the United States defending Taiwan is too high and not worth it.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, after conducting 24 war games, found that the U.S. Navy would lose two aircraft carriers and 10 to 20 large surface warships in a Taiwan Strait war, and about 3,200 U.S. military personnel would be killed within three weeks of the war, equivalent to half of the casualties suffered by the U.S. military in the past 20 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.
Ah, the American elite class is becoming increasingly anxious about the reunification of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.