Should the U.S. Military Intervene in Taiwan? A Soho Forum Debate
Brookings Institution senior fellow William Galston debates former State Department diplomat Peter Van Buren
HD DownloadShould the United States use military force to deter China from invading Taiwan?
That was the subject of this month's Soho Forum debate, which took place in front of a full house at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan.
William Galston, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Brookings Institution and a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, defended the resolution. He argued that the U.S. should use all the tools at its disposal to deter foreign powers from engaging in conflict with their neighbors, with the ultimate goal of preventing an outright war such as the one we are witnessing in Europe.
Peter Van Buren, who spent 24 years working as a diplomat for the U.S. State Department, took the negative. He argued that Americans rarely have the context or understanding to intervene productively in foreign conflicts, and that more often than not, what looks like deterrence to one party looks like provocation to the other. Invoking the many years of experience he gained as a State Department diplomat stationed in Asia, he stated confidently that there would be no invasion of Taiwan by China either soon or in the distant future.
The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.
Narrated by Nick Gillespie; intro edited by John Osterhoudt
Photos: event photography by Brett Raney; CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/Newscom; Kyodo/Newscom; Daniel Ceng Shou-Yi/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Jameson Wu/EyePress News EyePress/Newscom; Ju Peng Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; TOM WALKER/UPI/Newscom
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No.
I give up my job and now. I make $120 an hour operating from home doing those easy chores on line. I make $30,000 a month operating on line three hours a day. (hju11) I recommended you to strive. You may not lose anything, simply attempt it on the subsequent internet site and earn each day...
.
For extra details:>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Also, Fuck Joe Biden.
Lets go, Brandon. 🙂
I second the NO. And the Fuck Joe Biden. And add, Fuck the Brookings Institution.
First, the state Department has a dismal record of being correct on foreign policy, 99% wrong with liberal administrations on foreign interventions. Biden's changed policies on Afghanistan was recommended by the State Department as a great example.
Next, the US has a huge investment in companies in Taiwan, including computer chip manufacturing. 63% of the worlds computer chips are produced in Taiwan and it would be an incredible huge economic disaster if China ever took over Taiwan. The US is starting to re-invest in chip making in the Us but it will take 10 years before that can happen. That alone is a critical issue to the world. Looking at the take over of Hong Kong, the civil rights abuses and flat out violations of the contract by China for citizen rights is a glowing example of how they politically deal dishonestly in the world stage of politics.
During China's 50th Anniversary, they pledged to take over the world politically and economically in the next 100 years. The expansion of the pacific is a critical step in this and therefore should be stopped.
Politically, economically, global power, every facet of this shows the world should never accept this and do everything to protect not just Taiwan, but the worlds interest by defending them if needed.
Why do you think it would take that long?
Furthermore, if China attacks Taiwan, the US could scoop up most of the Taiwanese engineers who know how these plants work.
If most Western countries would simply recognize Taiwan and open formal embassies there, irrespective of CCP threats, they'd go a lot further in protecting Taiwan than any military promises.
Normally, I'd agree, but not sure that calculus works with China and Taiwan. Specifically, I am thinking of Tibet. I don't see diplomatic recognition of Taiwan as a deterrent to China. China will forestall military action only in the face of knowing they cannot win, and there is a face-saving way to step back.
The problem with that is, recognize Taiwan as what?
What makes you think China cares? As far as China is concerned, Taiwan is a rebellious province.
That's the rhetoric. I really wonder what the upper echelons of the Chinese government do think on this issue. Just as a guess, I suspect they see Taiwan mostly as an issue to manipulate the nationalists in the country. China won't invade Taiwan as long as this issue is useful. If it's no longer useful, they won't invade because it's not worth it. The only reason to actually invade would be if they were pushed far enough that they felt they would lose face by not invading. Of course, this is a more rational view (right or wrong) and it's inevitable that irrational actors will end up in charge of the government at some point. Then all bets are off.
Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? Isn't Biden preparing US Service[people] for deployment to Ukraine? Or was that just another gaffe?
"...he stated confidently that there would be no invasion of Taiwan by China either soon or in the distant future."
Well there you have it. A former State Department employee said so.
"...he stated confidently that there would be no invasion of Taiwan by China either soon or in the distant future."
That's how we know Taiwan's fucked.
>>more often than not, what looks like deterrence to one party looks like provocation to the other
whichever way is a benefit for the situation.
Well, we seem to have learned a lot about war recently. For China to successfully invade Taiwan they must move troops and fighting equipment across the straight. Visions of the fate of the Moskva and downed Russian aircraft come to mind.
It seems, that with anti-ship and antiaircraft weapons, Taiwan could hold out longer than China would wish.
Of course, China could take a page from the Russian book: if you can't conquer a place, blow everything up and kill everyone.
Which would destroy all the value from possessing Taiwan, making the invasion economically pointless.
China didn't care about that with Hong Kong, and they don't care about it with Taiwan. They want Taiwan because they view it as part of their nation. Ditto with Putin and Ukraine.
How many times is the West going to repeat the mistake of thinking of wars only in terms of countries wanting to enrich themselves?
They might. They import even more of their chips than we do. If those factories we're trashed, they might be in worse shape than we would be. Hong Kong didn't have that going for it. Though I definitely also agree with your point that the Chinese may have different perspectives on things than we might think.
Propaganda is fun.
Amazing to see all you "libertarians" who haven't grown since the cold war ended.
if you live in Taiwan you need to be making plans NOW for getting out quickly.
Just like everyone in Ukraine should have been doing in December and January.
Very true.
If China did invade Taiwan, the rationale for not providing significant military assistance and protection goes away.
Taiwan produces 40% of the world's semi-conductors, and north of 60% of US semi-conductor supply. Taiwan represents a vital US national interest. Yes, we will probably go to war with China over Taiwan because the US cannot run without semi-conductors - it is literally that simple.
If you think electronics are expensive now, consider the cost if half the semi-conductor supply is gone. Then consider the NatSec implications of a very restricted semi-conductor supply.
We need to be stationing subs, mine laying ships near Diego Garcia, and the Philippines. And anti-ship missiles, of course. The other thing to do is arm Taiwan to the teeth - ASAP.
Ukraine has proved that while artillery can still level cities, relatively new portable weapons can make it very costly.
++
There is a worldwide push to diversify semiconductor production globally, but it's going to taking at least 10 years.
We also must become more of a domestic producer of chips. Any and all environmental wackos who object should be fed directly into the volcano.
"We also must become more of a domestic producer of chips"
That ship has already sailed. The US was a domestic producer of chips way back when, the largest in the world, the place where the whole business of producing chips got off the ground. It's moved on since to east asia. Think of UK in the 19th century. They were stuck with the original aging equipment from the dawn of the industrial revolution while late arrivals like America and Germany started from scratch with more advanced versions.
Luckily, when it comes to semiconductors, the US would be starting from scratch and Taiwan would be stuck with aging equipment. But the effect for semiconductors isn't that dramatic anyway because the equipment becomes obsolete so quickly anyway.
The biggest problem the US has in attracting this industry is environmental and business regulations.
"The biggest problem the US has in attracting this industry is environmental and business regulations."
Places like Taiwan, China and South Korea are also becoming more aware of the quality of their environment, and regulating to alleviate it, if that makes you feel any better. And they produce the most advanced chips. In the future they may be supplanted by other producers as were the Americans. Maybe India. Samsung recently opened the world's largest mobile manufacturing facility in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, considered to be the 'greenest city in India.'
I don't think America will get very far by making it easier for companies to despoil the environment.
And consider the speed with which those plants would be rebuilt in the US, after giving special visas to all the Taiwanese engineers and scientists who know how to build and operate such plants.
Taiwans military is already armed to the teeth.
They have strict gun control for citizens.
You would think they would now start loosening gun controls to allow citizens to have assault rifles to assist the military.
In addition to behind the lines resistance, citizen militia frees up frontline troops from guarding check points, stopping infiltration and guarding prisoners.
All they need to do look at Ukraines’ use of armed citizens as militia.
They need to start now if they intend to start a gun culture where citizens are accurate with assault rifles and won’t shoot them selves.
Sadly, it looks they have no plans for this
"All they need to do look at Ukraines’ use of armed citizens as militia."
Or Iraq. Guns aren't enough. You also need people willing to shoot them.