East Asia’s Taiwan inquietude

Nancy Pelosi’s  Taiwan visit last month can be described as a plucky approach of the boss of the US Congress who even defied  her President’s advice against undertaking such a visit. The visit was significant at a time when USA and China are apparently taking a daggers drawn approach towards each other.  Such a determination was expected from a public representative like her who, then member of the House she heads today, bravely held high the banner in 1991at the Tienanmen Square in support of the Chinese who were massacred during the ill-fated 1989 anti-regime demonstration. Pelosi is well known for her indefatigable support for the Chinese students living in USA. Thus, there seems to be a political agenda behind Pelosi’s visit. The visit, however, exposed the latent uneasiness that persists in East Asia and the Pacific region over the Taiwan issue.  But the visit no doubt caused distraught to the small and medium powers of the region, especially in ASEAN, who do not want to fly in the face of either of the 21^st century geopolitical rivals. But more than that, they do not want the Taiwan issue inflated to a bloody conflict.

On the occasion of Nancy Pelosi’s visit, ASEAN issued a statement clarifying its stand against any provocative action destabilizing the region it is located in. At the same time it did not forget to reiterate its support for ‘one-China’ policy. ‘One-China’ policy is the prime non-negotiable condition that must to adhered to by any country for setting diplomatic relation with China. This is an adroit approach by the Chinese Communist Party to isolate Taiwan. Currently only 14 countries from the Caribbean, Latin America and Africa have diplomatic contact with Taiwan. USA shifted her diplomatic support from Taiwan to People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1979. The US-PRC Joint Communique , 1978 clearly stated that “The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.” Yet, the US Congress passed Taiwan Relations Act 1979 committing USA to the defence of US interest in not only Taiwan but the Pacific area as a whole. The Act was sponsored by Clement J. Zablocki, member of the House of Representative known for his strong anti-communist stand. The Act states that  future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means and that any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes is considered a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States. Noteworthy, it does not commit USA to any direct military involvement in defence of Taiwan (presumably taking lesson from the Vietnam fiasco). Thus USA is said to maintain strategic ambiguity over defence of Taiwan. Once President Joe Biden attempted to clear doubt by asserting that USA would use military force to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression but the White House immediately denied any such possibility. China, however, made her stand clear decade back when she passed anti-session law in 2005 if the island declares formal independence. Here lies the trick.

China considers her map incomplete without Taiwan. Taiwan is one of the ‘unfinished businesses’ that China has to complete. In his speech commemorating centenary year of the foundation of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021President Xi Jinping, referring to Taiwan,  termed China’s ‘complete reunification’ as ‘a historic mission and an unshakable commitment of the Communist Party of China.’ If one goes by this assertion, China will occupy Taiwan, sooner or later. And China knows the mission will not be easy since occupation of Taiwan will usher in strong resistance. The military modernization mission of China is meant to counter such a situation. Now what will USA do if China resolves to unify Taiwan with the mainland militarily? So far there has been a consistent  approach on Washington’s part to ensure Taiwan does not do anything that would provoke China, nor China wanted to be provoked either. This was more because China was militarily weak but  the CCP was obliged to undertake military action to prove its worthiness to its people. Today, China is militarily strong and is confident to make situation tougher for the challenger(s). That USA still prefers to avoid any unpleasant situation is clear from White House’s clarification following President Biden’s gaffe over Taiwan.

This status quo is welcome affair for East Asia as well. Although Japan is determinant to double down on her defence commitment and its defence ministry put forward largest ever budget demand worth $40.4 billion, the countries of the region, especially among the ASEAN, do not want to choose between China and USA. But in case of a conflict, they might choose USA. Worthy to note here is that none of the US allies in Southeast Asia has given up their five decades old mutual defence treaty. Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, even after his almost regular diatribe against USA, did not revoke the mutual defence treaty. The neighbours are scared of China and needs US’ protection guarantee. Unhindered occupation of Taiwan will enthuse China to  expand to the maritime domain. But, US-China conflict, which might start with Taiwan, will de-stablize the region hitting their economic relation with China hard. USA is not well integrated with the regional economy the way China is, via Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which came into effect this January. East Asia prospers on China which is the source of threat as well.

Taiwan is one of the major flash points in Asia-Pacific geopolitics. The countries of the region have adhered to One China policy. Yet they cannot be sure about Chinese intentions. Thus they need US protection. On the other hand their prosperity is tied to Chinese economy and even a US-China melee is too scaring an event for them to hypothesize. Thus they want the geopolitical status quo over Taiwan to continue. However, geopolitics is a constantly changing game and the Russo-Ukraine war has shown invasion is not an obsolete term, even  in the 21^st century.

Subhadeep Bhattacharya

Senior Adjunct Researcher

Asia in Global Affairs