US president’s remark that the US will intervene militarily in case Taiwan is attacked is encouraging but the million-dollar question is: Will the other Quad countries follow suit?
The Russo-Ukraine war, which enters its third month, has raised the possibility of China doing a Ukrainian thing in Taiwan. China ever since the communist revolution of October 1949 has professed to take back the ‘recalcitrant’ province by force if necessary. However, it has so far desisted from overtly using force to invade and take over Taiwan. To make matters complicated for China, the US enacted the Taiwan relations act, 1979, which allows the USA despite not maintaining official diplomatic ties with the island nation-state, to provide American military support to Taiwan under the Doctrine of Strategic Ambiguity.
While the status quo remains intact, what has changed the situation on the ground is the eyebrow-raising remarks of US president Joe Biden, who said that in the event of China invading Taiwan, the US will intervene militarily to defend the sovereignty of the island nation. Without an iota of doubt, China reacted strongly, arguing that the US stop backing separatist forces and scrupulously stick to the one-China principle.
All these interesting developments happened at the recent Quad summit held in Tokyo. The most important issue at hand is whether the rest of the Quad countries are willing to change the line vis-a-vis Taiwan and develop broader ties with the country. Let’s start with India.
Need of the hour
India has not explored the option of developing ties with Taiwan and still adheres to the one-China principle despite the deterioration of ties with Beijing
India has been at loggerheads with its northern neighbour for the last four or more decades over the unresolved border, the problem of the unresolved border led to the 1962 War, and numerous faceoffs over the years, the latest being the standoff with Chinese troops at the Pangong Tso since 2020 resulting in the June 2020 Galwan clash and the subsequent impasses at different finger points. Resolution of this territorial dispute has been time-consuming and difficult. In that context, it has been contemplated in Indian policy circles that for the purpose of controlling the dragon a broader development of ties with Taiwan is the need of the hour. However, India has so far not explored the option and still strictly adheres to the one-China principle despite the deterioration of ties with Beijing.
South China Sea region
Next is Japan, the country is locked in the Diaoyu-Senkaku island dispute for well over seven decades with no resolution in sight. Further, China is flexing its military muscles in the South China Sea region. This has prompted Japan to bolster its military spending despite the constitutional promise of not militarizing the country. Japan may too have thought of developing greater ties with Taiwan but there is again the issue of trade – China is the second-largest trade partner of Japan and a substantial destination for exports and imports of Chinese goods. Therefore, Tokyo has poured cold water over this proposal (for the time being).
Elephant in the room
Australia has really locked horns with the dragon with ties between Beijing and Canberra plunging over China’s human rights record and Australia’s call for a Covid probe
The next country is Australia, now this is a country that has really locked horns with the dragon. Ties between Beijing and Canberra have plunged inter alia Beijing’s human rights record, on one hand, Canberra’s call for an impartial international probe into the origins of the SARS-COV-2 which unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic in the world, Australia supporting the prosecution of the Chinese telecom giant Huawei and its ban in Australia. Further, the failure of ex-Australian premier Scott Morrison to prevent Solomon Islands from inking a security pact with China led to a literal change of guard in the country. Given all these issues Australia has thought, and is still thinking, that it would be necessary to take on China by developing ties with Taiwan, but commerce is still the elephant in the room. China is Australia’s largest trade partner and has retaliated with exports of certain Australian products; certainly, Australia is feeling the pinch.
Trade war can wreak havoc
Japan may have thought of developing greater ties with Taiwan but there is again the issue of trade
Last but not the least, it is America. America for long has excoriated Beijing over a host of issues ranging from its questionable autocratic political institutions, and trade practices to its espionage activities, but commerce again comes into the picture. Both the USA and China are so deeply economically intermeshed with each other that a trade war let alone an all-out conventional war can wreak havoc on global economics, and may jeopardize the fragile growth of the world economy, which is recuperating from the deadly impact of the pandemic induced economic depression.
Size doesn’t always matter
Therefore, it is clear that commerce and trade are the primary issues that are preventing the Quad countries from going on an all-out offensive against Beijing. However, foreign policy of any nation-state is all about taking risks and achieving the unknown. Hence it is time that if Quad countries are really concerned about ‘containing’ China, to use George Kennan’s quote “it is clear that the main element of any United States policy towards the Soviet Union must be long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansionist tendencies” in this context, then the Quad group of countries should seriously consider furthering ties with the island nation for the purpose of promoting a free, open, and inclusive indo-pacific region. Size doesn’t always matter, what matters is willpower and resolve.
– The writer is currently working as a Research Associate at Defence Research and Studies (dras.in) and is a columnist. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
–The writer is currently working as a Research Associate at Defence Research and Studies (dras.in) and is a columnist. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
