Is the US Abandoning Taiwan? TPP trumps Arms Sales

Is the US Abandoning Taiwan?
TPP trumps Arms Sales
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 17, 2012

Summary: Rumors have suddenly emerged from Washington saying that Washington is "abandoning Taiwan." This may be a non-mainstream view. But it shows that such rumors persist. Therefore they cannot be completely ignored. AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt said the United States is willing to support Taiwan's accession to the TPP. He said that President Ma has already shortened the TPP waiting time from ten years to eight years. But he said the wait could be even shorter.

Full Text below:

Rumors have suddenly emerged from Washington saying that Washington is "abandoning Taiwan." This may be a non-mainstream view. But it shows that such rumors persist. Therefore they cannot be completely ignored.

The reason cited for the alleged abandonment is that Taipei is an obstacle to improved Washington-Beijing relations. A reduced commitment to Taipei, means more Washington has more freedom and latitude regarding Washington-Beijing relations. This argument is expressed in various forms. Some say Washington is abandoning Taipei in exchange for Beijing forgiving Washington's one trillion dollars in debt to Beijing. Some say Taiwan has been "Finlandized," and Washington no longer supports Taipei's challenges toward Beijing.

The "Abandoned Taiwan Hypothesis" has a blind spot. It sees the relationship between Taipei and Washington as all or nothing. But Taipei-Washington relations is not a choice between "total coverage" and "total abandonment." This was not Taipei's relationship to Washington yesterday. It is not its relationship today. And it will not be its relationship in the future.

Even the Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty, in force between 1954 and 1980 had conditions. It only covered defense and containment. It did not cover Taiwan retaking the Mainland. The Chen Shui-bian government incited Taiwan independence. It provoked conflict between the two sides. The Bush administration said Taiwan independence elements were butting their heads up against a wall. They contributed nothing to Taiwan's democracy. Instead they undermined Taiwan's larger interests. As we can see, the US is not about to defend Taiwan unconditionally. Conversely it is unlikely to sever relations with Taiwan totally and "abandon" it.

The global situation and the cross-Strait atmosphere have changed, dramatically. Taipei-Washington relations have changed as well. In the 1950s, Taiwan was seen as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier," in the first line of defense. Washington formed a military alliance with Taipei against the threat from Beijing. This gradually changed. Today Washington supports Taipei because of its free economy and democratic politics. It helps Taipei use peaceful and democratic means to deal with Beijing. Taipei-Washington relations have diminished military significance. But they have increased ideological significance. Taipei and Washington uphold the same democratic values. This ideological significance is greater than the military significance.

Washington's cross-Strait policy is a "one-China policy." It has two bottom lines. It will not allow Beijing to destroy Taiwan's free economy and democratic politics by force. To wit, its intervention during the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis. Two. It will not allow Taiwan independence elements to undermine cross-Strait peace. To wit, its labeling of Chen Shui-bian as a "troublemaker."

To focus solely on the military significance of Taipei-Washington relations misses the point. Taiwan independence elements cannot achieve Taiwan independence through war. If Taiwan independence elements do not implement de jure Taiwan independence, Beijing has no reason to use force against Taiwan. Even if Beijing succeeded in occupying Taiwan, it would find it difficult to justify itself in the annals of Chinese history, and in the eyes of world. Washington is treading a middle way between "no Taiwan independence" and "no Mainland use of force." It has no reason to stir up cross-Strait enmiity. Taipei-Washington military relations, including arms sales, are ideological in nature, and not the real focus.

Will Washington "return to Asia?" Beijing has not been "exporting revolution." Instead, it has stressed "peaceful development." It is fully integrated into the world trade system. If Washington uses force against Beijing, it will lack a just cause. This is true even for the recent altercations in the South China Sea and surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands, Each of the parties claiming sovereignty has spoken his peace. Would Washington really risk war and intervene? From a global perspective, the chances that Washington would provoke a war with nuclear armed Beijing are nearly zero.

Under these international and cross-Strait circumstances, Washington no longer views Taiwan as an anti-Communist outpost in a showdown with Beijing. It is doing its utmost to prevent Taiwan from becoming a fuse that ignites conflict in the region. Taipei should have no illusions that in a conflict between Washington and Beijing, it would be Washington's vanguard. It should have no illusions that it can drag Washington and Beijing into a war and profit from the conflict.

The US "one China policy" offers Taipei some maneuvering room. Taipei must work at remaining economically free and politically democratic. This will enable it to stand its ground. This will enable it to remain independent and interact with Beijing. This will enable it to establish a peaceful win/win relationship. The US cannot "abandon Taiwan." Conversely, Taiwan independence elements must not entertain fantasies. They must not assume the U.S. will continue to see Taiwan as an anti-Communist outpost. They must not assume the U.S. will sympathize with the Taiwan independence movement. They must not assume the U.S. will "return to Asia," and therefore need Taiwan as military leverage. That would be naive in the extreme. That is a check the US would not be likely to honor.

Consider the prospects for Washington-Taipei relations. The TPP (Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement) is actually more important than arms sales. Arms sales involve battlefield weapons that cannot be used. Their sole purpose is ideological. If they are actually used, it would mean mutual destruction for both sides. If Taipei can join the US led TPP, it can integrate itself into the international community. It can then enjoy both economic and political security.

AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt said the United States is willing to support Taiwan's accession to the TPP. He said that President Ma has already shortened the TPP waiting time from ten years to eight years. But he said the wait could be even shorter.

美國棄台論：TPP比軍售重要
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.07.17 01:48 am

華府三不五時傳出「棄台論」，這雖係非主流的觀點，但至少顯示這種論調陰魂不散，不能全然聽若罔聞。

棄台論的觀念主軸認為：台灣是美中關係的障礙，美國若能降低對台灣的承諾，可以增加美國在美中關係上的自由與空間。這類論述以多種形式呈現：等而下之的是有人主張，以美國放棄台灣，交換中國取消美國的一點一四兆美元債務；形而上者則主張，台灣「芬蘭化」，美國不再支持台灣挑戰中國大陸。

棄台論有一盲點，就是欲將台美關係作「零與一百」的二分法；好像台美關係，不是「全保」就是「全棄」，不是「全棄」就是「全保」。但是，台美關係過去不曾如此，現在不是如此，未來也不會如此。

即使在台美的《中美共同防禦條約》生效期間（1954-1980），美國的「保台」也是有條件的；只在防禦及牽制，不容台灣「反攻大陸」；再如，陳水扁政府操弄台獨，在兩岸之間開釁，布希政府直指這是台獨分子「推車撞壁」（hitting into a wall），不但不能增添台灣的民主內涵，反而違反了台灣的整體利益。由此可知，美國不會無條件地「保台」；但是，若謂美國會一刀兩斷地「棄台」，亦為不可想像。

隨著世界情勢與兩岸氛圍的丕變，台美關係也逐漸推移變化。變化的主軸是：由50年代美國將台灣視為第一島鏈的不沉的航空母艦，與台灣結為軍事同盟，對抗中國大陸的威脅；逐漸轉移至今日，支持台灣為自由民主的政經體制，協助台灣以和平民主的方法去處理與中國大陸的關係。台美關係，在軍事意義上降低，但在共同維護民主價值的共識上則升高，這猶勝於軍事上的意義。

美國的兩岸政策主軸是「一個中國政策」。有兩條底線：一，不容中共以武力消滅台灣的自由民主政經體制，1996年台海危機可證；二，但也不容台獨挑釁兩岸關係，陳水扁被指為「麻煩製造者」即是例證。

因此，若將台美關係盯在軍事意義上，這是失焦。因為，台灣不可能以戰爭贏得台獨的實現；而台灣若不主張法理台獨，北京即無其他開戰動武的理由；且北京即使硬要以戰爭奪下台灣，其在中國歷史上及世界評價上將無以立足；而美國在「台灣不獨／大陸不武」的平衡中，亦無在兩岸尋釁的理由。因此，台美的軍事關係，包括軍售，主要只是用於政治上的表態及宣示，已非焦點。

再者，不論美國是否「重返亞洲」；中國既未「輸出革命」，又強調「和平發展」，並已完全融入世界經貿體系，美國真要對中國動武，恐亦師出無名；即使以最近南海及釣魚台的風潮而論，相關的主權爭議各說各話，美國難道真敢冒大不韙地以戰爭手段介入？事實上，就全球觀點而言，美國無端挑起與核子中國開戰的機率也幾乎是零。

在這樣的國際及兩岸情勢下，美國非但不會再將台灣視為與中國對抗的反共前哨，且更會全力促使台灣不再成為區域衝突的引信；而台灣方面，亦不必幻想能在美中兩大的敵對中，重新扮演美國尖兵的角色，更不必以為台灣能將美中拖入戰爭而從中獲利。

換句話說，台灣若在美國的「一個中國政策」的既有空間中，努力以自由民主的政經成就，站穩腳跟，自主且有效地與中國大陸建立和平雙贏的互動，美國即不可能「棄台」；相對而言，台灣若幻想美國仍將台灣視作反共前哨，或美國同情台獨，或美國「重返亞洲」需要台灣作為軍事槓桿，那恐怕就失之天真，未必能兌現美國「保台」的支票。

準此而言，瞻望美台關係的前景，TPP（跨太平洋經濟夥伴協議）其實比軍售重要。軍售只是以不可能真正用於戰場的武器，作政治表態（若真用上，必是兩岸的相互毀滅）；但台灣若能加入由美國主導的TPP，則可藉以融入國際社會，並獲得經濟上及政治上的平衡與安全。

對此，美國在台協會（AIT）主席薄瑞光說：美國願意支持台灣加入TPP；他還說，儘管馬總統已將加入TPP的時程由十年縮短為八年，但他認為還可以再快一點。