Ted Galen Carpenter and his sidekick Justin Logan have produced another hopeless review of Taiwan's defense situation, claiming that Taiwan is 'free riding' on the US and is not committed to protecting itself, while at the same time "provoking" China, an act that might lead to war. I've already shown how they totally misunderstand what is going on the first time around, and don't feel like beating that expired equine again, but there area few items of interest in this latest screed:Officials in Taiwan certainly appear to believe that the latter condition is true. Leading Taiwan expert James Mulvenon admitted in 2005 what had become increasingly apparent: that the leadership in Taipei believes it possesses a "blank check of military support from the United States."26 Similarly, Michael McDevitt,a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, argues that the authorities in Taipei "seem to have convinced themselves that they can count on U.S. intervention should China attack, regardless of the circumstances."27 Although during the summer of 2007 Taiwan officials sounded more skeptical of U.S. military support than they had two years before, the only way to explain Taiwan's policy of political provocation and military capitulation is a belief in a U.S. security commitment.
In the paragraph above Carpenter and Logan cite Rear Adm. Michael McDevitt's awful piece on on Taiwan called "Taiwan: the Tail that Wags Dogs" in which poor, helpless America and China are victims of the Awful Chen Shui-bian and his Mad Quest for Democracy and Independence. I showed how poor this piece was last year when it first appeared. Carpenter and Logan seem to be Establishment types who are stuck in the dilemma below:
Taiwan is a headache for the foreign policy Establishment since its ornery democracy that insists on an independence of its own interferes with smooth relations with China (translation: Big Profits), and thus, much of the writing that comes out of Establishment institutions on Taiwan consists of attempts to find a language and a stance that rationalizes the writer's cognitive dissonance as he, usually a decent human being, discusses how democratic Taiwan can best be betrayed to Communist China.
In this case Carpenter and Logan adopt the handy stance of blaming the victim: it's Taipei's fault we have to sell it out to China. First, it isn't defending itself, and second, it's provoking China. This is standard right-wing libertarian practice -- after all, if urban blacks are poor, it must be their fault. Nothing structural is going on......
In that same paragraph they cite James Mulvenon, "a leading Taiwan expert." Those of you who are trying to think of who that might be may be excused; Mulvenon is not a Taiwan expert but a PRC military affairs specialist who from time to time writes on Taiwan in that context.
The whole paper is highly slanted -- their sources for the budget data are three pieces in the media, including Jane Rickards' piece in WaPo on the recent budget passage. Rickards, some of you may recall, works for AmCham now, and was formerly employed by the pro-KMT China Post. Most of the piece is constructed in that same way. I especially love this line in that paragraph above:
....the only way to explain Taiwan's policy of political provocation and military capitulation is a belief in a U.S. security commitment.
Yep. That's right. It has nothing to do with misunderstandings by analysts like Carpenter and Logan, domestic politics, and so on. It can only be that and can't be anything else.
[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Asia] [Bush] [Chen Shui-bian] [Democracy] [DPP] [KMT] [Taiwan Independence] [Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)] [US Foreign Policy] [Washington Post]
12 comments:
Typo? :
"but there area few items"
"Michael McDevitt's awful piece on on Taiwan called" ...
A very good post (as usual), and special thanks for the James Mulvenon info, because I was really wondering for a moment.
Michael, maybe something you missed.
These guys thing Taiwan should boost its military spending to Israeli levels (close to 10% of GDP or something). Very easy to say, but they don't note that Israel gets big bucks free from Uncle Sam for its purchases.
So they expect Taiwan to fund 8-9% of GDP on defence by themselves? Ridiculous!
Israel gets big bucks free from Uncle Sam for its purchases.
Over 2 billion dollars a year. Now do you know why Arab hates us? It is our weapons and their blood.
arty, please don't divert the conversation. I was merely making the point that Israel can afford a large proportion of GDP on defence due to US aid, which Taiwan doesn't get.
Please stay on topic - this is about Taiwan.
The US will defend Taiwan if doing so is in their own interest. There may be other circumstances in which they might do it, but that is likely the main reason.
I think the US can not afford to leave China in control of a huge chunk of the world's semiconductor production, and to have China access to Taiwan's technology and manfacturing power. As long as that holds (and that might not be so long as China catches up) the US needs to defend Taiwan.
If it's in the strategic interest of the US to defend Taiwan, then they'll do that regardless whether they believe Taiwan provoked the conflict or not.
On the other hand if China wants to invade they'll do that regardless whether Taiwan "provokes" them or not - the strategic considerations will matter, not whether Taiwan calls itself ROC or not.
Two obvious and overlooked reasons why Taiwan has problems with building defense. I can't believe the so-called Taiwan defense expert(s) fail to mention them:
Political in-fighting between the DPP and KMT over whether to purchase.
US ambivalence over whether to allow Taiwan to purchase in order to maintain the Taiwan Straits "status quo". (Of course, old technology is readily offered for exorbitant prices!)
The US will defend Taiwan if doing so is in their own interest.
I can tell you that potentially getting hit by the Chinese ICBMs trump all other reasons. We will not defend Taiwan. Are you that crazy to think that we will start a war that could potentially be the doom of the world?
I believe libertarianism always had a strong element of the "Let the allies fend for themselves" mentality, even during the Cold War.
Given that philosophical pedigree then, it isn't entirely surprising that modern-day libertarians would actively look for excuses not to help Taiwan.
Arty - if a nuclear threat trumbs all other reasons, than why not hand over the US to China right now? What would stop them to ask for Hawai, or for full access to whatever military technology the US posesses?
Of course things don't work that way - the US has a nuclear threat, too. China will not fire nuclear missiles at the US in order to gain control over Taiwan, because they know that the US would retaliate.
There are many historical examples of nuclear powers clashing without using nuclear arms. As a random example, think of Russia and the US in Afghanistan. While the US did not engage directly in warfare, they nevertheless supplied arms and training to the Afghans.
There are many options available to the US to oppose a Chinese invasion. Both the US and China are well aware of that.
Arty - if a nuclear threat trumbs all other reasons, than why not hand over the US to China right now?
Because last time I checked, Taiwan is not part of US. Do you speak English in Taiwan?
Of course things don't work that way - the US has a nuclear threat, too. China will not fire nuclear missiles at the US in order to gain control over Taiwan, because they know that the US would retaliate.
If the conflict between the US and China is direct. You never know what's going to happen. Btw, it is not a common knowledge that nitrogen and oxygen reaction is exothermic. The estimation has shown that it will take less than 10% of US nuclear warheads to cause chain reaction in the amsphere.
There are many options available to the US to oppose a Chinese invasion. Both the US and China are well aware of that.
Well, tell me one, if it is a direct invasion by China with getting US troops directly invloved.
Michael's assessment has it about right. A few quick points:
1. Ted Galen Carpenter does not reflect of views of Libertarian Party. In fact, I would argue he contradicts them, and it's unfortunate that Mr Carpenter is perhaps the only one at CATO that focuses on East Asia. Frankly, from the perspective of a "neo-libertarian" (no idea what this is, but sounds cool), I believe that Mr. Carpenter has so many facts out of whack that I'd recommend the institute encourage other views. Here's the basic foundation of the Libertarian Party:
"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."
"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized."
"Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
"Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands."
When one looks at Libertarian principles and U.S. foreign policy, Taiwan should be a wet dream. No entangling alliance...a victim of external coercion and authoritarianism...and some of the best entrepreneurs in the world.
2. James Mulvenon is a respectable China scholar. He's a reflection of a larger problem in the US academic system in which Taiwan is placed as a subset of China; which is also the way it is in the government bureaucracy (Taiwan Coordination Staff is subordinate to the China desk at State). There are very few Taiwan scholars in US academic circles today. As a result, Taiwan is viewed through a China lens, and China scholars, as competent as they are on their area of focus, are accepted as authoritative on Taiwan issues.
Taiwan is incredibly complex, as similar and different as the U.S. and UK are -- different economies with some interdependencies, different systems of governance that influence each other, different sets of security challenges, mostly with one being the cause of insecurity for the other.
Who knows Taiwan well? There are a quite a few, especially if one takes a PhD as a qualifier and throw it out the window. Actually, some of the best, able to communicate well in English, are in Taiwan. I'd argue that a good use of MOFA funding would a series of conferences in Washington DC focused on Taiwan that bring in a range of paper writers and presenters, including a handful from Taiwan with differing sets of opinions.
Post a Comment