China is a autocratic state that insists that it must rule Taiwan. The Obama administration has not only alarmed China with our loud pivot to Asia and the Pacific; but has stiff-armed Taiwan to the point where--in light of the Senkaku islands dispute--they are willing to work with the looming behemoth that wants to snuff out their democracy:
One can read between the lines. The US plays it very coy. It hasn’t even made a decision on the sovereignty of Taiwan. It has a long history of playing its cards that way. Some call it strategic ambiguity. But regarding Taiwan, 67 years is a heck of a long time to be ambiguous,” said Jerome Keating, a former National Taiwan University professor.
While US official policy on Taiwan is “undecided” over who should have sovereignty over the islands, sources say that Taiwan’s increasing willingness to indirectly work with Beijing against Washington’s interests is starting to ruffle American feathers.
We stall weapons deliveries and refuse to sell advanced versions of the F-16 (while the basic design is quite old). Not that Taiwan didn't play a part in a lot of the delays when we offered a complete package 13 years ago.
Granted, the warming of relations is largely a domestic Taiwanese initiative. But now the opposition party wants to play nice with China as a path back to power. Would they have taken that stand if they felt they could count on pointing to a strong American friendship as an alternative to working with the mainlanders?
China must love this. It starts a self-reinforcing trend by making us more reluctant to sell weapons to Taiwan lest they fall into China's hands after some deal; which makes Taiwan more vulnerable to invasion by China and pushes Taiwan to work with China more; which reduces our willingness to support Taiwan by selling weapons.
Unless Taiwan decides to get off that treadmill by building nuclear weapons as the only remaining hope for defending their island democracy.
It seems like just yesterday that our president received the Nobel Peace Prize for his potential in halting nuclear proliferation through the force of his internationalist will.
We're alienating a country that has no alternative to our support if they are to resist being conquered. Is this the "smart" or the nuanced part of our diplomacy that is purportedly restoring our reputation in the world?
