By Lee Seong-hyon
The Global Times, the public opinion warfare tool under Chinese publication People's Daily, is at it again. In an Aug. 16 editorial titled "A Lesson for Taiwanese Authorities to Learn from Afghanistan," it said: "If there is an all-out war in the Taiwan Strait, U.S. reinforcements will not come."
The news spread to every corner of the world and caused commotion. Concerns have also arisen in South Korea whether its alliance with the U.S. is strong enough, or South Korea should be prepared for "contingency." U.S. President Joe Biden hurriedly stepped in, clarifying that South Korea (together with a few other allies) is "fundamentally different" from Afghanistan.
Regardless of whether the U.S. will come out to intervene in the event of the Taiwan Strait crisis, China has, in fact, already succeeded in achieving the basic goal of public opinion warfare by making people "agitate." Even the U.S. president felt compelled to respond.
From the U.S. side, it had reason to be indignant toward the Global Times' editorial. It was Biden himself who had declared "America is back," but then he withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan, one of the primary global hot spots of conflict.
Biden's move was also harshly criticized by Britain, Washington's foremost ally. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair even lashed out at Biden by publicly describing him as an "imbecile," a term North Korea used in 2019 to criticize then-presidential candidate Biden. It's like the U.S. is sustaining the same insult from both allies and adversaries.
The U.S. is legally obligated to provide defense to Taiwan, yet Washington maintains a policy of "strategic ambiguity" as to whether it will intervene militarily to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. As the Taiwan crisis escalates, there is an increasing argument in some pockets of Washington that it should shift to "strategic clarity" that affirms military intervention. However, this is not happening. Herein lies the American dilemma.
If the U.S. vows military intervention, it makes logical sense for China to pre-emptively strike and neutralize U.S. air bases and naval assets near Taiwan before Beijing mounts armed attacks on Taiwan. On the other hand, if the U.S. "declares" it will not intervene in a Taiwan Strait crisis, China will be lionized to invade Taiwan. It's similar to the "Acheson Line."
Just months before the outbreak of the Korean War, the then-U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson announced the so-called Acheson Line. In a speech, delivered at the National Press Club, he excluded Korea from the U.S. defense line (Japan was included). Albeit there is no conclusive historical evidence that the Acheson Line was what motivated North Korea to decide to invade South Korea. But a good number of Koreans think so.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping may believe he has a license for kinetic outreach to Taiwan. Here, the license is the public backing. In a recent survey in China, as many as 86.2 percent of Chinese respondents said they would support the unification of Taiwan even by force.
Xi, who is trying to use the Taiwan unification as a paving stone for his long-term power and as he dreams of establishing the legacy of being the "unification president," may feel that he has already secured a foundation for the people's support for the use of force. Against this backdrop, the U.S. lifting of "strategic ambiguity" has the danger of emboldening China.
Furthermore, an armed conflict between the U.S. and China near the Taiwan Strait would make a U.S. aircraft carrier increasingly vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the DF-21D.
Nevertheless, there is a very high possibility that the U.S. will intervene, should a conflict in the Taiwan Strait actually arise. The purpose of the editorial in the Global Times was to spread the image of the U.S. as a "kaobuzhu" (unreliable) country, by negatively highlighting the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. If successful, that will frustrate the establishment of a global "anti-China solidarity" toward which the Biden administration has been working hard.
Given Taiwan's increasing prominence in the U.S.-China rivalry, as well as its strategic location in the Indo-Pacific, Washington cannot afford to tarnish its image by neglecting Taiwan. The global audience is watching. And Washington's reputation is at stake.
Taken together, the United States cannot make Taiwan a "second Afghanistan." Ironically, the Global Times made a significant contribution to this realization.
Lee Seong-hyon, Ph.D. (sunnybbsfs@gmail.com), is a visiting scholar at Harvard University's Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies. He is the former director of the Center for Chinese Studies at the Sejong Institute.
 |
The news spread to every corner of the world and caused commotion. Concerns have also arisen in South Korea whether its alliance with the U.S. is strong enough, or South Korea should be prepared for "contingency." U.S. President Joe Biden hurriedly stepped in, clarifying that South Korea (together with a few other allies) is "fundamentally different" from Afghanistan.
Regardless of whether the U.S. will come out to intervene in the event of the Taiwan Strait crisis, China has, in fact, already succeeded in achieving the basic goal of public opinion warfare by making people "agitate." Even the U.S. president felt compelled to respond.
From the U.S. side, it had reason to be indignant toward the Global Times' editorial. It was Biden himself who had declared "America is back," but then he withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan, one of the primary global hot spots of conflict.
Biden's move was also harshly criticized by Britain, Washington's foremost ally. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair even lashed out at Biden by publicly describing him as an "imbecile," a term North Korea used in 2019 to criticize then-presidential candidate Biden. It's like the U.S. is sustaining the same insult from both allies and adversaries.
The U.S. is legally obligated to provide defense to Taiwan, yet Washington maintains a policy of "strategic ambiguity" as to whether it will intervene militarily to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. As the Taiwan crisis escalates, there is an increasing argument in some pockets of Washington that it should shift to "strategic clarity" that affirms military intervention. However, this is not happening. Herein lies the American dilemma.
If the U.S. vows military intervention, it makes logical sense for China to pre-emptively strike and neutralize U.S. air bases and naval assets near Taiwan before Beijing mounts armed attacks on Taiwan. On the other hand, if the U.S. "declares" it will not intervene in a Taiwan Strait crisis, China will be lionized to invade Taiwan. It's similar to the "Acheson Line."
Just months before the outbreak of the Korean War, the then-U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson announced the so-called Acheson Line. In a speech, delivered at the National Press Club, he excluded Korea from the U.S. defense line (Japan was included). Albeit there is no conclusive historical evidence that the Acheson Line was what motivated North Korea to decide to invade South Korea. But a good number of Koreans think so.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping may believe he has a license for kinetic outreach to Taiwan. Here, the license is the public backing. In a recent survey in China, as many as 86.2 percent of Chinese respondents said they would support the unification of Taiwan even by force.
Xi, who is trying to use the Taiwan unification as a paving stone for his long-term power and as he dreams of establishing the legacy of being the "unification president," may feel that he has already secured a foundation for the people's support for the use of force. Against this backdrop, the U.S. lifting of "strategic ambiguity" has the danger of emboldening China.
Furthermore, an armed conflict between the U.S. and China near the Taiwan Strait would make a U.S. aircraft carrier increasingly vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the DF-21D.
Nevertheless, there is a very high possibility that the U.S. will intervene, should a conflict in the Taiwan Strait actually arise. The purpose of the editorial in the Global Times was to spread the image of the U.S. as a "kaobuzhu" (unreliable) country, by negatively highlighting the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. If successful, that will frustrate the establishment of a global "anti-China solidarity" toward which the Biden administration has been working hard.
Given Taiwan's increasing prominence in the U.S.-China rivalry, as well as its strategic location in the Indo-Pacific, Washington cannot afford to tarnish its image by neglecting Taiwan. The global audience is watching. And Washington's reputation is at stake.
Taken together, the United States cannot make Taiwan a "second Afghanistan." Ironically, the Global Times made a significant contribution to this realization.
Lee Seong-hyon, Ph.D. (sunnybbsfs@gmail.com), is a visiting scholar at Harvard University's Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies. He is the former director of the Center for Chinese Studies at the Sejong Institute.
![[INTERVIEW] Virtual K-pop group MAVE: is more than just pretty pixels](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/bcc387606cf7451c94f51a5978960c9f.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
