X Close

China is dividing the American Right

The end of strategic ambiguity? Credit: Getty

October 7, 2024 - 1:00pm

Late last week, Donald Trump’s former national security advisor John Bolton sparred with former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy over whether the US should use military power for global security. The debate has highlighted the contrast between the foreign policy ideals of the old and new Right ahead of an election in which voters are keenly aware of heightened geopolitical instability.

“The calculus in Beijing is, if America and the West won’t defend against an unprovoked aggression in Europe itself, we will never come to the side of Taiwan,” Bolton argued at a debate hosted by the conservative Steamboat Institute.

His younger counterpart agreed that a Chinese takeover of Taiwan would be “a foreign policy disaster”, but claimed that defending Ukraine actually weakened the US in relation to Beijing. “China doesn’t reason based on moral authority: they reason based on hard power. And our hard power with respect to China is weaker when we’re involved in other foreign conflicts that don’t advance our interests,” Ramaswamy said, citing recent delays in weapons shipments to Taiwan and a sparse US naval presence in the Pacific.

The exchange demonstrated the growing rift on the American Right over China policy. The Trump-aligned populist Right has coalesced around tariffs as an answer to China’s dominance and aggression. Beneath the surface, however, tensions are brewing over how the US should ensure the safety of Taiwan from a Chinese invasion.

America’s longstanding Taiwan policy has been one of strategic ambiguity, meaning the US does not make pronouncements about how it will respond if China invades the island. But Republicans are now divided over whether to maintain this policy and the extent to which the US should be clear about its intentions to arm and support Taiwan.

During his presidency, Donald Trump was a hawkish defender of Taiwan, sending American fighter jets to the island for the first time since 1992 and speaking directly with its president, the first time such diplomatic ties had been established since 1979. Recently, though, the GOP candidate has become more dovish. He drew condemnation over the summer after he avoided directly answering whether he would defend the island, and then called for Taiwan to pay the US for defence.

“Taiwan should pay us for defence,” Trump said in June. “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” The comments resembled those he made about Nato in February, in which he encouraged Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to member countries which don’t meet their financial obligations.

The contrast between Ukraine and Taiwan is a recurring theme on the populist Right. Critics of US aid to Ukraine tend to be more hawkish on China, citing the potential competition between Ukraine and Taiwan for US weapons and other resources. Trump’s running mate J.D. Vance has endorsed strategic ambiguity, and recently argued that American support for Ukraine puts Taiwan in a difficult position due to limited resources. This stance is at odds with the school of former secretary of state Mike Pompeo who recently argued that the threat of China could not be separated from that of Russia, Iran and North Korea. On this “axis of evil” conception, it is argued that defending Ukraine is akin to defending Taiwan from the same enemy.

Others, meanwhile, have suggested that Taiwan is not doing enough to ensure its own safety and have even cast doubt on the strategic significance of the island. Elbridge Colby, a former defence advisor to Trump, wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month that Taiwan was “very important” for preventing Chinese hegemony over Asia, “but not essential”. He added: “To make Taiwan defensible, America must focus on preparing for Taiwan’s defence and Taiwan must do more.”

Senator Tom Cotton has taken an even firmer stance, calling for the US to “change our Taiwan policy from ‘strategic ambiguity’ to ‘strategic clarity’” and writing: “the United States will come to the defence of Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack”. Senator Thom Tillis also called for an end to strategic ambiguity.

The question of military intervention in Taiwan is staved off for the time being, not only because strategic ambiguity obscures politicians’ true thoughts on the matter but because of American reliance on China, according to Chris Griswold, policy director at American Compass. Because the US imports pharmaceuticals, industrial equipment, rare earth minerals and military supplies from China, direct confrontation is currently not a realistic option.

“If we are radically dependent on China for economically and militarily critical goods — and right now, we are — then that severely constrains [our] options,” Griswold told UnHerd. “At a certain point, you can’t even fully have the debate.”


is UnHerd’s US correspondent.

laureldugg

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

6 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert
Robert
4 hours ago

I think that last paragraph says a lot. Mr Griswold’s observation is blunt and to the point. Kudos to Ms Duggan for seeking a source for comment that is outside the usual cast of characters that make up the conservative think tank world. American Compass is an organization that is increasingly getting under the skin of the conservative establishment and for good reason.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 hours ago

The question of military intervention in Taiwan is staved off for the time being,
This, no doubt, is dismaying to the likes of Bolton who, along with like-minded people on the right, echoes a good part of the left, which increasingly sees war as the default answer to everything. Perhaps watching more than a half million Ukrainians be killed for no good reason has impacted Trump’s view of using the military as a tool. Either way, there is no imminent invasion of Taiwan from the mainland; Beijing sees one China as something that is going to happen over time, and probably without bayonets.


Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
2 hours ago

I probably support strategic ambiguity, but what exactly is the strategic value of Taiwan, other than its supply of computer chips?

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
42 minutes ago

Ukraine is very different from Taiwan. Ukraine has been an independent country ever since the Soviet Union broke up. We agreed to support that independence. Our policy is clear and unambiguous.

On the other hand, American policy for decades has been that Taiwan is not a country but is part of China, as in the People’s Republic of China. Nothing ambiguous about that policy either. The rest of the world aside from a handful of countries has the same unambiguous policy.

To what degree we should support Ukraine is a matter to debate. Of course we should not fight China if it chooses to take over Taiwan.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
3 hours ago

I’ve got complicated feelings on the issue of whether/how the United States should defend Taiwan. On the one hand, Taiwan’s present week position is largely the result of the US trying to split the difference and appease both sides in the conflict – i.e. by breaking off diplomatic relations with Taiwan but continuing to sell Taiwan weapons, but not its best weapons, and bullying Taiwan into giving up its nuclear weapons program in the 1980s, and trying to keep up ambiguity about what would actually happen if Taiwan is attacked, and so forth. Defenders of this policy argue that it’s necessary to maintain “stability” in Asia, but at the same time it’s the opposite of what the Americans have done with respect to Israel, whose survival they really care about, and for which “stability” just means “the Israelis are strong enough that nobody has anything to gain by attacking them.”

So when a large nation like the USA encourages weakness and dependency on the part of a small nation like Taiwan (or Ukraine, for that matter), it’s rather trashy to suddenly decide that defending the small nation is unimportant or hopeless after all, and walk away. And yet the complaint that Taiwan isn’t taking its own defense seriously enough, and is trying to freeload, is true. Taiwan spends much less on defense (as % of GDP) than the United States, and their military training regime is deeply unserious.

I’ve written about my mixed feelings re Taiwan in more detail at my own substack:

https://twilightpatriot.substack.com/p/four-remarks-on-the-future-of-taiwan

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
50 minutes ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

American policy for decades has been that Taiwan is not a country but is part of China, as in the People’s Republic of China. Nothing ambiguous about that. The rest of the world aside from a handful of countries says the same. Of course we should not fight China if it chooses to take over Taiwan.