Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

Source: I live in America and pay too much attention to foreign policy commentators

Taiwan is an unenforceable and unself sufficient island well within Chinese strategic envelope. China, while imports heavily has _massive_ domestic resource extraction + industrial capabilities, i.e. China is not resource constrained like Japan. She does not need to venture outside to sustain a war economy. China on war economy can produce enough missiles and rocketry to make Taiwan Yemen, forever. There is quite literally, not a scenario where Taiwan and most of East Asian / ASEAN would not be perpetually crippled at China's whims if she is forced into North Korean / containment hermit geopolitics. Realistic China/Taiwan scenario, Chinese air trivially takes out Taiwanese military assets and gains air superiority, this is more or less accepted think tank reality since 2010s. China then destroys Taiwanese power generation. Without food / energy self sufficiency, limited strategic food reserves, Taiwan starts to starve in 3 months. Meanwhile, Chinese shore based rocketry can ensure no reinforcements / supplies ever lands on Taiwan proper, this is also think tank consensus - very few thinks USN could safely operate within Chinese shores anymore. Taiwan is worse off than Yemen who has land borders. China can do this today, and can maintain this indefinitely, all without ever landing a single boot on Taiwan proper, even if her people go back to eating rice and riding bicycles. Years of this and either Taiwan capitulates and is governed by puppet government or becomes dust. The only actor preventing this is USN.

>Ultimately this is about the Communist Party looking for a balance.

Beyond being a national project central to CCP legacy, Chinese security is not possible with an independant Taiwan. It's really that simple. There are strategic imperatives why Taiwan must be incorporated within Chinese sphere. The first best option is peaceful reunion, the second best option is forceful reunion, the third best option is turning Taiwan into dust. As long as Taiwan is independent, she is a massive threat, one that will be contained as soon as PRC is able to. Which is an force balance equation between China and US. When China makes her move, and IMO she will within 15-30 years, US has to decide if they want to risk reputation hit of being unable to provide security guarantee. This is why US military support for Taiwan is strategically ambiguous. Because US does not know they can aid Taiwan, while US can always contain China via Malacca or other SLOC chokepoints. 15-30 years from now even that is not guaranteed. This is why Pompeo is pushing for for friction, he wants confrontation sooner than later. Preferably after Taiwan loses semi dominance, and before Chinese military fully modernizes and break through containment choke points. This is 10-15 years from now.

E: reply too fast

@yyyk, this scenario is not optimal, but it's within possibility space if Chinese redlines / strategy is threatened (i.e. US base on Taiwan, Taiwan going nuke). The point is, it's possible today and will always be on the table going forward, especially if US presses for hot war containment before Chinese military modernizes. Which again, is a distinct possibility because it is within US long term interests. That's the critical window where everything goes to shit. As for bloc containing China, I have doubts, many countries, especially in the region benefit from multipolarity. Taiwan getting iced just means others in the region picking up their export markets. If China is in a position to challenge USN, it can challenge any bloc. If it comes down to turning Taiwan into Yemen, China will go hybrid warfare like Crimea, engineer scenario where Taiwan is aggressor for casus belli, i.e. Chinese ferry full of kids getting sunk by Taiwanese naval mine. Most in the region and IMO around the world just wants an excuse not to participate. Again like Crimea. Chinese actions in SCS is basically calibrated grayscale warfare, they've had lots of practice and success.

@yyyk2, no one is projected to have the ability counter-blockade China outside of USN unless there is massive coordinated coalition naval build up. Near record naval budget increases by the usual hypothetical containment allies (Japan/Korean/AU/India etc) will still be massively overshadowed by Chinese naval expansion plans for next 5 years. This is in context of Chinese military budget decreasing relative to GDP growth IIRC. TBF anyone outside of USN don't matter. IMO this is a China vs US battle. I'm curious what realist concerns if only because China taking over Taiwan by 2049 is been loudly broadcasted as national priority for 50+ years. Everyone saw this coming and hasn't really done anything about it, because fundamentally Taiwan outside of TSMC short term is not pressing to anyone's interests, and that is an unanticipated but fleeting condition. Not much is happening right now outside of posturing (QUAD, some planned exercises by UK, France/DE directing to ASEAN) while China is securing trade deals. Containing China is only significant to US interests. Everyone else is hedging, EU/East Asian/ASEAN hedges for good deals and US security subsidies, Africa/MENA would only lose since China's their biggest customer and MENA affairs directly affects EU domestic policy. but I don't see anyone else willing to hedge with blood and iron. The world doesn't care about Yemen and Crimea, nor HK/XJ/Tibet/SCS outside of platitudes and Chinese rhetoric on those issues were comparable than Taiwan but also tier less in order of importance. Conversely a contained hermit China can wreck all of East Asia / ASEAN, destabilize MENA which will reverberate throughout EU. In exchange for what? Resetting the power balance so US can solidify it hegemony more? IMO China executing plans on Taiwan is inevitable, and the only winner of dragging that out is US assuming they can contain China unscathed.

@Apocryphon, it's absolutely possible to engineer scenario where Taiwan initiated aggression and China is retaliating. The reason why US is hesitant to grant Taiwan unambiguous security guarantee is they can't rely on Taiwan not turning bold/stupid and initiating a confrontation that US doesn't want to get drawn in. It's in neither China nor US interests to have Taiwan determine her own future. As long as China can cobble together a casus belli, she gives everyone else and excuse to sit out, regardless of how believable the excuse is. Keep in mind ROC / Taiwan tried to blockade most of Chinese shores via "port closure" declarations for decades, and flew US funded U2s over PRC airspace. The civil war never ended, lots bygone historic excuses to leverage with new developments to muddle waters. I think if one evaluates actual interests, which I articulated paragraph above, most countries are looking for an excuse not to intervene.

I personally think a future where China annexes Taiwan would bring about a more stable and peaceful geopolitical relationship between China and the US because of three reasons.

1. The US is not threatened by China. The Pacific prevents any invasion of the America's, and China cannot blockade the US given its two coastlines and world class navy.

2. China is threatened by the US. It's ringed by US military bases and depends on oil shipping through the Indian Ocean.

3. China has no ideology of global expansion and conversion like the USSR, nor does it need more land and resources like the much smaller Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Taiwan (and frankly all of China's other disputes) are limited goals of a nationalist ideology from the 1940s and losing Taiwan won't trigger a dominoe effect of China annexing the rest of the world and threatening America or Europe.

In a future where Taiwan was annexed and the US has pulled it's bases back to Guam or Hawaii, I can't see any future flash points between the two nations. Rather, a much healthier and respectful relationship between two powerhouses that mind their own affairs instead of sticking weapons and provocations in each other's faces.

However, this line of reasoning requires accepting that the US should not act as a global defender of democracy worldwide regardless of cost or strategy, and that encouraging a democracy to spring up in the path of a unsettled conflict wasn't the wisest of choices.

Still, minority positions tend to be unpopular unless reality proves them to be true.

Action speaks louder than words.