How to Avoid a War in Taiwan - Threats, Assurances, and Effective Deterrence (TAED) was an academic paper authored by Thomas J. Christensen, Director of the China and the World Program at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs; M. Taylor Fravel, the Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science and Director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bonnie S. Glaser, Director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States; Andrew J. Nathan, Class of 1919 Professor of Political Science at Columbia University; and Jessica Chen Weiss, the Michael J. Zak Professor for China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Cornell University and a former Council on Foreign Relations Fellow on the U.S. Department of State Policy Planning Staff. The authors are among the contributors to 'Avoiding War Over Taiwan', a report by the Task Force on U.S.-China Policy convened by the Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations and the 21st Century China Center at the University of California, San Diego, School of Global Policy and Strategy. This article was adapted from the report and was published on October 13, 2022, in Foreign Affairs and simultaneously on several university websites. Hence, this article has reached a significant number of readers. Christensen et. al. in a clear academic style explained the complex Taiwan conflict in terms of the TAED hypothesis (from the U.S. perspective). This author read this article in October and had wanted to comment on it, but it did not get on the to-do list till December, a couple of weeks after the G20 conference in Bali, Indonesia. This author is glad that he could include the Biden-Xi three-and-half hour meeting in Bali as a reference when commenting on the article by Christensen et. al. The G20 Summit Meeting of U.S.-China verified to some degree on the U. S. approach of TAED (especially on the Taiwan issue) but it also confirmed my belief that TAED was unilateral wishful thinking not only could not stand the test of time nor observed the teaching of history. (From Xi's statements, we can say China firmly rejects TAED.) The U.S. strategists simply misinterpreted or ignored what China meant by 'unification with Taiwan is a destiny of (Chinese) history', no matter how the U.S. wishes to use TAED to deal with the Taiwan issue. China and its 1.4 billion people will always view Taiwan as China's domestic problem to be solved by the Chinese with a historical mandate.     
 
According to the concept of TAED, the three parties must maintain a balance of Threat, Assurance and Effective Deterrence. For Taiwan, the threat is a military attack from Mainland China but she is breaking the balance with the progression of time since the military strength of Mainland China has increased to an unsymmetrical state even putting U.S. carrier-based defense vulnerable. Taiwan's assurance of not moving to independence if the Mainland would not attack Taiwan was weakening as exhibited by citizens' opinion poll (the U.S. might have believed that people's opinion could be forever controlled in Taiwan before, but history tells us that it is never the case whether in a democratic or authoritarian system). For the U.S. both threat and assurance are weakening. The former is due to the rise of the PRC military strength and the collapse of the first island chain in deterring China. The suggested approach to encourage Taiwan to strengthen its own self-defense like a porcupine and to build alliances in Asia to provide deterrence to China is just wishful thinking, assuming people are ignorant or careless about consequences. People in Taiwan understand what porcupines can do and must sacrifice in defense and Asians do understand what war will bring as an ultimate consequence. Why would they replicate any situation that could be worse than Ukraine? As the Christensen+ article pointed out that Taiwan as an island has no border with any country to receive supplies. How much fuel and food storage can survive bombs and missiles during a war? The crux of the matter is that the U.S. may be able to sell to the Tsai Administration the TAED strategy but the people will not buy it. Purchasing more second-rate defense weapons and increasing drafts and military service are not convincing young people that they will have a bright prosperous future.  The past November election in Taiwan essentially has put handwriting on the wall that they don't trust their current government.
 
At the G20, Biden and Xi had a long talk. It is almost certain that a lot of issues were discussed and the Taiwan problem must be one of them. We know that Xi conveyed again that the Taiwan problem is what history has left for the Chinese to solve. It will be a core issue with a clear redline. Biden essentially was saying what Christensen et al were saying – maintaining the TAED strategy. Biden will adhere to the one-China principle but may not be able to leave Taiwan alone since Biden Administration is not capable of controlling the Congress or any think tank being lobbied by pro-Taiwan independence interest groups in the U.S. or in Taiwan. The fundamental issue is that the U.S. has not learned or is unwilling to think from the opponent's position. Christensen+ had quoted Ely Ratner, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs saying: “If Beijing controls Taiwan, the U.S. can't defend other Asian Allies.” This is equivalent to saying: if Beijing government exists, the U.S. can't defend other Asian allies. Beijing may ask why the U.S. has to defend the other Asian allies in the first place. In fact, the U.S. is facing that challenge; some ASEAN nations simply refuse to take sides against China. China could well say that so long as the U.S. has control over Japan and South Korea, China cannot have peace nor can defend other Asian nations. They have more proof that the Japanese Imperial army has invaded China and many other Asian nations whereas the PRC army has never set foot on Japan's soil (the U.S. army did and does!) The Taiwan issue cannot be kept in a steady state under a TAED with no legal and historical justification. The unification will eventually take place. Whether it would be peacefully completed or not depends on 1, Mainland China's military strength and political resolve (both are enhancing). 2, Chinese people's wisdom in recognizing their future should be decided by themselves, not by any third party.  The U.S. has benefited and strengthened by WW I and WW II, but hopefully she will eventually yield to the reality that no one can benefit or survive from WW III.







​

 
The Senate Bill, S. 4428 - Taiwan Policy Act is a product of complex bipartisan political wave and a long-time lobbying force pushing for Taiwan Independence. There was a pro-Taiwan lobbying effort in the U.S. since 1996 when Lee Deng Hui betrayed the KMT party’s one China policy. Lee’s visit to and speech at Cornell University in 1996 in fact created a military fiasco in the Taiwan Strait that the U.S. had to put out the fire. The U.S. Administration in the subsequent two decades had to constrain the Taiwan government to adhere to the one China principle which is recognized by the U.S. as the foundation for U.S.-China formal diplomatic relation. Chen Shui Bien Administration (2001-2008) reluctantly obliged (President Bush called him troublemaker) and the following Ma Yin-Jiou Administration (2009-2016) made significant improvement in the cross-strait relationship. Then Tsai Yin Wen won the election in 2016 on an ambiguous promise of “Maintaining Current Status” (peaceful and huge trade surplus with Mainland China) but turned 180 degrees to disengage with Mainland China and to promote an anti-China policy after she took office.
 
The above developments coincided with the cycles of the U.S. presidential elections, exactly from 2008, 2016 through 2020-22 election cycles. Trump won in 2016 by advocating “make America great again” and blame the U.S. problems on China’s rise: stealing American jobs, making trade surplus and threatening U.S. securities with rapid development. This political wave was so strong, though irrationally fanned, when Joe Biden challenged Trump in 2020 presidential election, he had to ride on the anti-China wave and step on the red lines defined an ambiguous U.S.-Taiwan relation. Hence the “targeting China” policy rose in Biden’s Administration with amplification. The U.S. Administration and Congress have jointly created a set of legislations and policies to maintain a trade war and a sanction policy on technologies and hi-tech products against China. Diplomatically, the U.S. is lobbying her Allie’s to join in the ‘targeting China’ effort. After exhausting the ‘Hong Kong card’ and spending the ‘Xinjiang card’ with no severe damage to China, the ‘Taiwan Card’ is now used like a rash, tumor or cancer to hurt, retard or suffocate China’s rapid development in economy and many other domains, including space. Mainland China’s extreme sensitivity to the Taiwan unification issue was largely regarded exploitable by U.S. political scholars and politicians.
 
S. 4428 - Taiwan Policy Act is sponsored by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ, Chairman of FRC) and cosponsored by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on June 14, 2022 after hearings held since December 2021. Menendez argued that Taiwan is a successful and prosperous democracy which we should cherish but he failed to recognize that Taiwan’s success was built on a generous surplus trade with Mainland China (Surplus equals $133.84B, 42% of Taiwan’s export to China is $188.9B and only 10% of export is to the U.S.)The bill essentially contains three main thrusts, one, symbolically raises Taiwan’s status by suggesting changing Taiwan’s diplomatic office name and statue, two, helps Taiwan to engage in the international organizations and three, supports Taiwan defense by beefing up Taiwan’s ammunition reserve and weapons as well as offering military training and strategic guidance. This bill was passed by Senate FRC by 17:5 with some amendments of toning down the provocative diplomatic office name change but increasing the military reserve support to an amount of $6.5B that can be written off over five years. These amendments appeared to be a response to the unspecified concerns from White House and a few sensible Senators' critical comments. Ed Markey (D-Mass), who led a congressional delegate visiting Taiwan (August 14-15, 2022) right after the controversial visit by Nancy Pelosi, feared the bill would undermine strategic ambiguity. He seemed to have understood the sentiments of Taiwan people by saying that “It is the people living on Taiwan who are facing the daily realities … and will be the ones targeted in reaction to changes in U.S. policies. We should not take actions that put Taiwan at increased risk, with little reward.” Markey also made a sensible remark, "do everything we can to avoid a situation that could draw two nuclear-armed countries into a conflict." We need more sensible Senators and Congressmen to work on legislations.
 
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), among four Democratic no votes, wants to revise Taiwan policy but in a way that “doesn’t precipitate a conflict. He is very honest about military support and security guarantee: “My interest is in increasing the material support we give to Taiwan. I’m less enthusiastic about changes in law that would provide formal or quasi recognition to the government in Taiwan for changes that would push us closer to a security guarantee,” Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) both did not support the bill because of the ‘symbolic change’ issue and Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) also voted against the bill with criticism that the proposal is a move toward strategic clarity and a potential reversal of the One China policy. “This is not a time to radically change long-standing policy … without an appreciation of the consequences that may follow,” Paul said. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) voted in favor of the bill but commented that the original version was “too forward leaning and potentially provocative.” Dave DeCamp, news editor at Antiwar.com, in a tweet expressed that, the bill, if passed, "will be the most radical change in U.S. policy toward Taiwan since the 1970s and will make war much more likely."
 
As reported in Gov/track.US, the Taiwan Policy Act has a 14% chance of being enacted into law predicted by Skopos Labs, an AI research entity. This bill was first introduced on June 16, 2022 by sponsor Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and cosponsor Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The committee then held two meetings on July 19th and August 3rd respectively on the bill and ordered to report to the Senate Chamber on September 14th, after the 17:5 passing vote, an updated version was produced on September 15th. This bill will be scheduled on Senate agenda for a discussion and debate. After Senate approval, a final version will be sent to the House for committee and chamber review. The House final version will go through a joint-chamber review, revision and approval before sending the final to the White House for President’s acceptance or rejection. Hence, the 14% chance of enacting S. 4428 into law is quite logical. However, since the consequence of the enactment of this bill is extremely dangerous, not only with possibility of breaking the U.S.-China diplomatic relations but also with a chance of creating a devastating war in the Taiwan Strait forcing the U.S. to enter into an un-winnable war or lose credibility. This author sincerely urges every American citizen to write to his or her Senators and Congressman or women of the 117th session of Congress and all candidates running for the 118th Congress to make effort to squash this war-triggering bill in their sessions. The people in Taiwan do not want to turn Taiwan into another Ukraine!

​

 
Abstract

Comments on “Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy-A Good Force in the Changing International Order”, paper by Tsai Ing-Wen, published in Foreign Affairs November/December 2021 issue. This is a 'call for help' paper seeking sympathizers. However, the paper contains many contradictory points and false statements. The author feels sad after reading it and urges politicians and political parties to think hard on the question: Who really cares about Taiwan?
 
The publication time of this article, the United News report: "Written at the invitation of Foreign Affairs" and its English and Chinese title, all suggested that this episode was too much like an orchestrated drama co-starred by the United States and Taiwan. The wording used in this article seems to be entirely based on the current script of the United States strategy of forming a world alliance of democracy against non-democracy (US-defined): Indo-Pacific future, Taiwan model (pawn), changing rules, and struggle between good and evil. Tsai Ing-wen is very proud that Taiwan is considered by the United States as a model of democracy. It doesn't matter where the content of the article comes from or who has modified or edited it; she is willing to sign and publish this article. What is important is that when the mainland celebrates the National Day on October 1st and commemorates the 110th anniversary of Sun Yat-Sen’s successful Xin-Hai Revolution of 1911 on October 9th, the United States and Taiwan must also appear in the media. Thus, the article scheduled to be published on the November/December bimonthly FA periodical quickly appeared on October 5th on the network. However, Xi Jinping’s speech on the 110th anniversary of the Xin Hai Revolution had clearly attracted more attention from Chinese and Westerners worldwide. Xi mentioned the Taiwan issue. The language was short but powerful. The Taiwan issue must be resolved along with national rejuvenation. Cross-strait reunification is the common will of all Chinese people. And he declares that one country - two systems is the basic framework for the common development of the motherland, emphasizing peaceful development, complete reunification, opposing secession, and claiming that Taiwan’s independence movement is a serious crime. Those who engages in splitting the country will not end well and they will be spurned and judged by the country and its people.
 
The author received Tsai Ing-Wen’s manuscript after October 10th. After reading it, he felt sad and not excited as he was after hearing Xi’s speech. Tsai’s article read like a long-winded call for help. On the one hand, it is saying that Taiwan is the model of democracy: on the other hand, it is saying that in the world the democratic system is falling to an disadvantageous position comparing to an authoritarian system. The article says Taiwan is being suppressed by the international community and is looking for unusual channels to connect with the world, but the article also says that Taiwan is a powerhouse that can maintain the world supply chain and help develop the regional economy. Any person who cares about international affairs and has the ability to judge and analyze really cannot offer any positive comment on Tsai’s article other than saying that the purpose of her article is to call for help. But due to the contradictory and false statements in its content, people cannot respond to its call for help with sympathy. Some people on the Internet say that Tsai is like a desperate dog jumping over a wall (狗急跳牆）, compelled to write the desperate article. This author would like to suggest another analogy. It is like a domestic cat who lands on the top edge of a high wall and doesn't know how to get off. If it jumps down, it will be seriously injured. This circular high wall has no end. This cat has everything to eat and drink in a castle, living comfortably, but it foolishly jumps out of the window. Fortunately, it lands on the edge of the high wall escaping a death fall. Is it useful to call for help now? I'm afraid it must wait for the owner to rescue it! The author uses this metaphor to describe the author's feeling, and this feeling comes with a reason. Please continue to read the following.
____________________________________________________________________________________
 
Taiwan is a part of China and China is the master. Most of the people of Taiwan are connected by blood from the descendants of Yan Huang (炎黃子孫）. Taiwan’s exports to the mainland account for 40% of its total exports. Mainland, with more people, makes greater progress as expected. Even in the semiconductor area, Taiwan is no match. Otherwise, would the mainland be able to go to the Moon and Mars? TSMC is just an OEM company which requires a lot of capital. Does the mainland have no money? The U.S. still owes her trillions of dollars! The US democratic system has progressed over 250 years still engaging in endless bipartisan fights deterring nation building. Taiwan has only been engaged in 30 years of democracy with more vicious party fights. Can Taiwan be considered as a model of democracy? The third world countries do not believe that nor will the developed European democracies. Lithuania may want to pretend to be a fairy tale country to take Taiwan to a joy ride back to eighteenth century, but Taiwan must be realistic. This is Tsai Ing-Wen’s first contradictory point. Being unyielding under pressure but taking no adventurous step even with help is another contradictory point. In Tsai’s content, she states that authoritarian governments function more efficiently in dealing with the pandemic, which promotes a contrast of ideologies. The article also implies that Taiwan is able to control the epidemic disease properly and help other regions, but she does not provide any specific data to prove it. Tsai directly compares the threat of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) proportional to the value of Taiwan. She also believes that Taiwan can contribute to maintaining the stability of the region. This is so contradictory to the purpose of this article, calling for help. On the one hand, Tsai is praising Taiwan's value by citing technology (artificial intelligence, biochemical technology, and semiconductor industries) to emphasize its strength. On the other hand, it admits an asymmetric situation, including military strength, obscured international relations (relying on special diplomatic channels), and need to invest in a mysterious asymmetric defense capability. This is also a contradictory point. Should Taiwan fail, would the whole region really be finished as she implied? Let’s ask who really cares most about Taiwan? The answer should be mainland China!
 
In addition to Many contradictions, Tsai has also made many false or untrue statements. Tsai believes that his government represents the entire people of Taiwan and that the people trust the elected officials, a great relationship. However, we know that Taiwan’s impeachment activities are more flaring than that in the U.S. Presidential candidate, Han Guo Yu, supported by millions of people, can be easily removed by a manipulated impeachment by the DPP. Now the KMT will also use the same tactics to depose or recall DPP officials, Taiwan was able to experiment with a democratic system because the CCP adhered to its belief in peaceful reunification and proposed a one country - two systems policy, which has given Taiwan decades of peace. However, Taiwan’s political parties (and politicians) only strive for political power by fooling voters, engaging in ethnic divisions, and completely disregarding the long-term safety and prosperity of the people. Doesn’t anti-China mean abandoning peace? Isn’t it true that there can be no democracy if no peace? Tsai not only failed to report the truth, but instead clung to the thighs of the U.S. defaming Mainland China with no conscience. She also used the strategy of the Democratic Alliance to oppose Mainland China. Comparing Tsai’s paper with the US White Paper on China, you can see the similarities in the text, and especially the tone, so much like the American version (Example, "We have to invest considerable resources to deepen our understanding of the Beijing regime". Isn’t this what the Americans often say?). What’s more ridiculous is that Tsai learned from the American National Endowment for Democracy (NED funding regime change worldwide) to set up a Taiwan Democracy Foundation funding organizations advocating democracy and human rights. The article also said that Taiwan would fight negative information because Taiwan had considerable experience in this regard. Judging from Taiwan’s cyber army (網軍performing fake news and personal attack) and organized fraud gangs (詐騙集團committing global crimes), Taiwan is indeed very experienced. Isn't Tsai's admission like a Kingsley gaffe?!
 
Tsai’s call for help is to find sympathizers (and the U.S. is looking for anti-China allies) and beg for cooperation, exchanges, and trades. Taiwan uses the trade money it earns from the Mainland (hundreds of billions of surplus) to buy US used weapons and supply resources for other small countries to take an anti-China stand. Should this work, ethically? Can it go far with no repercussion? Whether the U.S. can organize an anti-China Democratic League is yet unknown, and who will make a profit in the end in the competition between the U.S. and China is uncertain. What is certain, however, is that in this competition game between the U.S. and China, other relevant countries are all pawns, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. etc., Taiwan is just a little pawn, not something that an article can change its status. For the sake of the future of the people in Taiwan, Taiwan’s political parties and politicians should learn from this call for help, not to be a cat who jumps onto the edge of a tall wall or a child who runs away from home in defiance of the parents. Think about where your home is, who really cares about you and hurry up and find your way home!