The Strategic Importance of Taiwan to Us-China Relations - Coursework Example

School: Topic: DOES TAIWAN MATTER? An analysis of the strategic importance of Taiwan to US-China relations Lecturer: Submission: Introduction Sino-American relations, which refer to the international relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, have been in existence for several centuries, where the two countries have considered each other as a strategic partner for growth (Chan & Wong, 2013). As much as the two countries consider themselves as strategic partners, there are times that their relations have involved a feeling and thought that one of them is a potential adversary, whose actions must be well monitored and tamed if the other must grow (Hund, 2013). In the light of this, there are several behind the scene actions of interest that are taken by both countries in ensuring that they can minimise any possible adversities one of them can offer, whiles enhancing or maximising the strategic growth opportunities of their relations. One of the major international issues that have for long remained discussed among world leaders and the academia as a possible determinant of the outcome of the Sino-American relations is the place of Taiwan for these two countries. Whereas some argue that Taiwan is an important entity in enhancing the relationship between China and the US for growth and advancement, others have reasoned that the place of Taiwan is not important to the Sino-American relations and that Taiwan could be a possible hindrance to the political and economic successes that both countries must experience (Ross, 2002). The division in the public discourse on the place of Taiwan in the Sino-American relations is the rationale that informed the current study. With reference to the division in public discourse, the study was taken with the aim of analysing the place of Taiwan in the Sino-American relations. This is expected to be done by reviewing arguments put forth by both realists and liberalists on the place of Taiwan in the relations. By identifying the merits and limitations with both sides of the debate, it will be possible to draw a conclusion on whether Taiwan matters and has any strategic importance to the Sino-American relations. The main conceptual approach that will be taken is however the liberalist thinking in analysing the question. References to realist thinking will only be made briefly to balance the academic debate. As part of the liberalist thinking, the essay’s main argument is that Taiwan used to be the most important aspect between the Chinese and American power and economic dominance struggle in the late 1980s. With time however, changes in the global approach to international relations affected the relevance of some of the methods used by both countries in drawing Taiwan to its side and so Taiwan has now become less important in determining Sino-American relations. The paper therefore argues that Taiwan indeed matters but its rate of importance to the Sino-American relations has become reduced. To argue out the position of the writer, some key themes and terms of international relations relevance will be defined and explained. These include the legacy of the civil war, the economic importance of Taiwan, and the role of Japan to the Sino-American relations from the perspective of Taiwan. The definition and explanation of the terms also form the structure of the paper. Conceptual approach With the nature of the question, there are two major conceptual approaches or reasoning that can be used in taking a position on the importance of Taiwan to the Sino-American relations today. These are the realist thinking and the liberalist thinking. According to Mohan (2002), realists believe that Taiwan is highly important when referring to the use of in hard power and military capabilities as a means of fostering absolute gains. Explaining the concept of absolute gains from a realist theoretical perspective, Ross (2002) stated that it is what international actors such as heads of states seek to get in determining their interests while weighing out the total effects of a decision on the state. Because absolute gains are based on the non-zero-sum game, realists have always seen hard power and military capabilities as a justification for gaining international dominance and power because of the need to gain comparative advantage at any cost (Mearsheimer, 2006). As will be reviewed later, Taiwan had been a central entity to America during the Chinese civil war because through the dominance over the Island, America could see itself as also dominating China because China did not have the kind of power and military capability over Taiwan as America did (Kupchan et al., 2001). Since the absolute gains put emphasis on other factors including economics, realists believe that Taiwan is highly important to the Sino-American relations because the place of Taiwan does not only guarantee America international political powers but economic ones as well. Focusing on 21st century international relations, Li (2003) observed that there are several weaknesses and challenges with the realist conceptual thinking where the approach to international relations is through absolute gains because countries are becoming more concerned about the protection of their sovereignty and the need to guaranteeing the welfare of citizens both home and abroad. Because of this, even though what takes place in other places matter to world leaders, their attitude to these have totally changed (Mearsheimer, 2006) as world leaders have based on liberalist approach or thinking to seek more peaceful solutions to cross-country conflicts whiles focusing on economic cooperation and prosperity. As relative gains describe actions of states only in respect to power balance and are related to zero-sum game, it can be said that the approach to international relations in the 21st century is now based on relative gains approach, which is a component of liberalist thinking. The paper’s conceptual approach would therefore be based on liberalist thinking to international relations. There are two major current examples that can be given to justify the dominance of the liberalist approach to international relations today over realist thinking. One of this is America’s approach to Boko Haram in Nigeria and President Obama’s recent meeting with Cuban leader Castro. Certainly if America was more realist, its approach to Boko Haram and Cuba would have continued to be through hard power and military capabilities. The legacy of the civil war The civil war is considered by most historians as being a national one (Wong & Chan, 2003). This is because of the issues that informed the civil war and the parties that were involved. As history has it, the civil war was fought between forces that were loyal to the Kuomintang (KMT) –led government of the Republic of China at the time and force loyal to the Communist Party of China (CPC) (Zhang & Cameron, 2013). Apart from the parties involved in the war which made it more of a national than an international one, it would also be noted that there was a massive ideological split on the governance of China, where the split was between Communist CPC and the KMT’s Nationalism. Up to today, the legacy of the civil war is the formation of the two de facto states which were the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in mainland China (Tyler, 1999). As a war emanating from national issues and differences in ideologies, it was expected that the international world will be kept largely away from the war by way of direct involvement through such means as military interventions. However, as the reign of realist thinking and realist approach to international relations was dominant in 20th century, the US thought that its direct involvement in the war through the exhibition of hard power and military capability was going to be a major means by which it would retain its acclaimed identity as the world’s super power or power house (Sukma, 2009). Schaller (2002) observed that in line with America’s desire to be part of the war as a means of gaining an ally in the long while, the Cold War which was also going on served as a major advantage for America to make the civil war more of a global war than a national one. This is because as a result of the Cold War, America needed a lot of allies the world over to strengthen the formidability of its forces. Because the Cold War was largely fought between powers in the Western Bloc made up of the US and its NATO allies, and the Eastern Bloc made up of Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact, it was important that US would gain more Asian support (Chan & Wong, 2013). This was a fine opportunity by which America could have Taiwan as an ally by supporting ROC in the civil war instead of PRC. By so doing, America made the civil war take on a global or international sight and automatically attracted allies for PRC as enemies of America thought it right to go to the side of PRC against ROC. As far as the civil war is concerned therefore, it can be deduced that the place of Taiwan in the Sino-American relationship was one that made China an adversary to the US rather than a strategic partner. This worsened the relationship between the US and China can be said to have run for most parts of the 20th century, making Taiwan a determinant of adversity in the Sino-American relations in the 20th century. From a more theoretical perspective, it would be true to argue that the realist approach to international relations applied during the civil war than the liberalist approach and that through the realist approach, America gained the global dominance it wanted by partnering Taiwan in the civil war (Christensen, 2000). It however remains important to look at the issue from a holistic perspective where the issue of timing can be considered very critical. This is because in the opinion of Schaller (2002), towards the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century the legacy of the civil war could no longer be felt in determining adversity in the relationship between US and China. For example in the heat of the civil in 1928, US became the first nation to recognise the new regime of Nationalist Government as legitimate, rising a lot of tension among the communist and thus the subsequent Communist Government which was formed after the war (Lynch, 2012). As a result of the action taken by the US in supporting the Nationalist and resulting tension with Chinese governments that came after, several sour events took place between US and China. For example in 1942, even after President Roosevelt sent General Joseph Stilwell to Chongqing as the chief US military advisor, there were major disagreements between the two in terms of strategy and troop deployment in such a way that material aid from US seized (Sukma, 2009). The US, the fear in supporting the Nationalist was based on the domino theory which held that if China took back Taiwan, Taiwanese would fall to Communism and the effect will spread to the rest of Asia. Economic importance of Taiwan From an economic view point, it would be said that the liberalist approach applies more in explaining the importance of Taiwan to the Sino-American relations than the realist one. As a matter of this, unlike the political dimension where Hund (2013) argues that the realist approach was relevant in the 20th century but became less significant in the 21st century, for the economic dimension, the liberalist approach has been said to be relevant since the beginning of the 20th century till date. The reason this is said is that on the whole, Taiwan’s economic significance has been considered far less when compared to the rest of Asia since the beginning of the 20th century. Even as of 2014, Taiwan’s total gross domestic product (GDP) nominal was only $505.452 billion (25th in the world) as against China’s $11.212 trillion, which is the second highest in the world (CIA, 2014a). Because of this, many analysts have thought that approaching Taiwan’s faithfulness in the Sino-American relations with the use of absolute gain principle which approves of the use of hard power even in terms of gaining economic dominance will not be appropriate (Tyler, 1999). This argument can be said to be particularly valid given the fact that America which is a partner in the Sino-American relations has the world’s largest economy with GDP nominal of $16.768 trillion (CIA, 2014b). There are however some economists who have indicated that Taiwan’s influence in the Sino-American relations cannot be said to be totally insignificant due to how close related the economic outlooks of America and China are. That is, China is considered a very close chaser of America in terms of the size of national economy. For example up to date, China is the world’s second economy in terms of gross national product (GNP) whiles US is number one (CIA, 2014b). The implication this close economic chase is that China would like to do anything possible and take any available opportunity to guarantee its catch up. To many analysts, this situation poses much threat to the Sino-American relations for America than it does not china. This is because when Taiwan falls to China, the real implication will be that Taiwan will become part of China as a country but when Taiwan falls to America, it cannot be part of America as a country but only as a partner (Wong & Chan, 2003). By inference, Taiwan’s falling to China will give China direct economic benefits but falling for US will only come with partial economic benefits. For several analysts however, the argument is not just about how Taiwan’s fall to one of the two countries will affect it as a nation size of economy but the real issue is with by what quantum the fall will bring. For example, even if Taiwan becomes part of China as a country, China may have some economic advantage but may not overtake America as the world’s largest economy just overnight. In effect, the liberalist approach is considered more important in dealing with Taiwan from an economic perspective. This is because through the use of a liberalist approach, both American and China will be expected to apply and focus on the use of economic cooperation rather than force in getting and gaining the allegiance of Taiwan. Writing from an economic perspective, Mohan (2002) indicated that it is always important to remember that as long as Taiwan is sovereign state, economic independence is one issue that will remain very critical for its national planners. In effect, Taiwan would always want to weigh and compare the outcomes of any relations it has with either US or China. It is for this reason that the use of such strategic means as economic cooperation and partnership is recommended rather than violence or force. From an economic perspective therefore, it can also be said that Taiwan have always played very little role in the Sino-American relations. This is because even though Taiwan’s national wealth cannot be considered as being insignificant for the growth and advancement of any country, none of the countries can by any means claim absolute stake in Taiwan’s economy. Knowing this, the two countries would rather prefer the use of economic cooperation rather than any forceful means. Meanwhile, on the basis globalisation and internationalisation, there are several other countries that are considered strategic partners for the economic growth and expansion for both China and US than Taiwan, based on the size of their economies. Typical examples of such countries are Japan, United Kingdom and Korea. The role of Japan As part of the liberalist thinking to international approach and the relative gains theory, one question that national leaders ask is whether or not they have better alternatives in gaining power balance (Zhang & Cameron, 2013). It is on this basis that it remains very crucial to bring into the argument a third party in considering how relevant or important Taiwan is in the Sino-American relations. To do this, Japan is selected as it is also a member of the Asian Bloc as Taiwan as Japan also comes as an ideal case study of knowing if there are not other countries that have some relations with both China and America which may have some variables or history that could affect the Sino-American relations than Taiwan has. In this, the first indication that can be given is that Japan’s contemporary environment and variables make it more preferable as a country either China or America would chase or win to itself as an ally. (Kupchan et al., 2001). By contemporary environment, reference is being made to Japan’s economic variable. For example as America and China come in the first and second place respectively in terms of GNP, Japan is ranked third globally with nominal GDP of $4.843 trillion (CIA, 2015). Based on this, analysts have said that both America and China have looked more to Japan for strategic partnership than they have done for most other countries even in the West (Ockney, 2001). Meanwhile, into the 21st century, economic partnership through the use of economic cooperation has become a basis for gaining global dominance as against political power (Christensen, 2000). This particular situation makes Taiwan weigh much less than Japan in Sino-American relations. Another perspective that puts Japan ahead of Taiwan and thus weighs the importance or relevance of Taiwan further down is how China perceives Japan politically as against Taiwan. Even when arguing from a realist thinking, Li (2003) observes that there are several hostile and cold relations between China and Japan than there is between China and Taiwan. A typical example that can be given to justify this point is the dispute of Senkaku Island which brought more tension between China and Japan than the civil war brought between China and Taiwan. Since the time of the dispute of Senkaku Island, most historians have come to take the position that Japan has been on a wilder look out than Taiwan has been for China (Lynch, 2012). Meanwhile, there are several moments in history where US has given Japan support in terms of both diplomatic and economic favouritisms to the displeasure of China. A typical example of recent example that can be given is US-Japan energy cooperation which China sees to be a major factor in empowering Japan to chase China economically (Ockney, 2001). By extension, the brewing tension between China and Japan due to US’s support for Japan and the dispute of Senkaku Island makes Taiwan a less likely entity of focus in the Sino-American relations. Conclusion What has changed regarding the importance or relevance of Taiwan to the Sino-American relations is the new global approach to international relations. This is because in the 1980s, power dominance was a major issue in international relations. As a result, countries were constantly using force and military approaches to be regarded as the power house of world politics. Through such approaches which were well endorsed by realist thinking, countries could indeed gain the kind of international recognition they required and this affected several aspects of their national developments, including economically. Today, the realist thinking has become less dominant, preferred and useful. This is because with the advancement in globalisation and technology, the true stake for international dominance is not longer the forceful means by which countries relate to others. Rather, it is now more about diplomacy, trade and investment penetration, technological expansion, and economic growth. Today, countries have become more concerned about how they can protect their citizens and provide them with basic needs for which governments are voted into power. As a result of this, even though countries continue to relate to each other and take up common international agendas, the need to do these has become less relevant. It is this change in approach that has made Taiwan less relevant and important to the Sino-American relations as it used to be before. This is because American’s main advantage from Taiwan was the military and political dominance it posed over China. Even though the arguments made above can be said to be conclusive for the question that was set, there are some limitation that can be found with the claim. The limitations are however subject to the conceptual approach that a person may be viewing the overall argument. For example a person viewing the topic from a realist dominant perspective may claim that if America maintained its approach to dealing with Taiwan as it did in the 1980s today, it would have a two-sided international relations approach and this would have widen the outcome or merits that the country would have derived. Again, a realist is likely to argue that given some cases of civil wars, international conflicts and wars, and the fight against terrorism that continues to exist in the world today, the old approach to international relations where there was much emphasis on violence, force and military action still remains relevant today. It is however important to focus on the issue of frequency and outcome of approaches rather than merely looking at the applicability of given approaches to gaining international dominance. Comparing the limitation to the argument that was made, it can therefore be claimed that the question has adequately been answered by taking the position that even though Taiwan matters, it matter less since the 21st century. This is because its main relevance was through the creation of tension during the Cold War period and even though there are still wars around the world, the outcome of these wars do no benefit countries as much as diplomacy does. References Chan, S. & Wong, J. (2013). “China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement,” Asian Survey Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 507–526; Christensen, T. (2000). “Theatre Missile Defense and Taiwan’s Security,” Orbis Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 18–32 CIA (2014a) World Factbook: Taiwan. New York: Intelligent Press CIA (2014b). World Factbook: United States. New York: Intelligent Press CIA (2015). World Factbook: Japan. New York: Intelligent Press Hund, M. (2013). “ASEAN Plus Three: Towards a New Age of Pan-Asian Regionalism? A Skeptics Appraisal,” Pacific Review Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 383–417 Kupchan, C. A. et al. (2001). Power in Transition: The Peaceful Change of International Order. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Li, B. (2003). “Absolute Gains, Relative Gains, and US. Security Policy on China,” Defense and Security Analysis Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 309–317 Lynch, M. (2012). “Why Engage? China and the Logic of Communicative Engagement,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 20-32. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2006). “Structural Realism.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mohan, J. M. (2002). “Dragon on Terrorism: Assessing China’s Tactical Gains and Strategic Losses after 11 September,” Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 252–293; Ockney, J. (2001). Thailand: The Struggle to Redefine Civil-Military Relations. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ross, R. S. (2002). “Navigating the Taiwan Strait: Deterrence, Escalation Dominance, and US.-China Relations,” International Security Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 48–85; Schaller, M. (2002). The United States and China: Into the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sukma, R. (2009). “Indonesia-China Relations: The Politics of Re-engagement.” Asian Survey 49, p. 591. Tyler P. (1999). A Great Wall: Six Presidents and China: An Investigative History. New York: Century Foundation. Wong J. & Chan S. (2003). “The China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement,” Asian Survey Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 507–527. Zhang J. & Cameron, G. T. (2013). “China’s Agenda Building and Image Polishing in the US.: Assessing an International Public Relations Campaign,” Public Relations Review Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 13–28. Read More