Ted Galen Carpenter and his sidekick Justin Logan have produced another hopeless review of Taiwan’s defense situation, claiming that Taiwan is ‘free riding’ on the US and is not committed to protecting itself, while at the same time “provoking” China, an act that might lead to war. I’ve already shown how they totally misunderstand what is going on the first time around, and don’t feel like beating that expired equine again, but there area few items of interest in this latest screed:

Officials in Taiwan certainly appear to believe that the latter condition is true. Leading Taiwan expert James Mulvenon admitted in 2005 what had become increasingly apparent: that the leadership in Taipei believes it possesses a “blank check of military support from the United States.”26 Similarly, Michael McDevitt,a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, argues that the authorities in Taipei “seem to have convinced themselves that they can count on U.S. intervention should China attack, regardless of the circumstances.”27 Although during the summer of 2007 Taiwan officials sounded more skeptical of U.S. military support than they had two years before, the only way to explain Taiwan’s policy of political provocation and military capitulation is a belief in a U.S. security commitment.

In the paragraph above Carpenter and Logan cite Rear Adm. Michael McDevitt’s awful piece on on Taiwan called “Taiwan: the Tail that Wags Dogs” in which poor, helpless America and China are victims of the Awful Chen Shui-bian and his Mad Quest for Democracy and Independence. I showed how poor this piece was last year when it first appeared. Carpenter and Logan seem to be Establishment types who are stuck in the dilemma below:

Taiwan is a headache for the foreign policy Establishment since its ornery democracy that insists on an independence of its own interferes with smooth relations with China (translation: Big Profits), and thus, much of the writing that comes out of Establishment institutions on Taiwan consists of attempts to find a language and a stance that rationalizes the writer’s cognitive dissonance as he, usually a decent human being, discusses how democratic Taiwan can best be betrayed to Communist China.

In this case Carpenter and Logan adopt the handy stance of blaming the victim: it’s Taipei’s fault we have to sell it out to China. First, it isn’t defending itself, and second, it’s provoking China. This is standard right-wing libertarian practice — after all, if urban blacks are poor, it must be their fault. Nothing structural is going on……

In that same paragraph they cite James Mulvenon, “a leading Taiwan expert.” Those of you who are trying to think of who that might be may be excused; Mulvenon is not a Taiwan expert but a PRC military affairs specialist who from time to time writes on Taiwan in that context.

The whole paper is highly slanted — their sources for the budget data are three pieces in the media, including Jane Rickards’ piece in WaPo on the recent budget passage. Rickards, some of you may recall, works for AmCham now, and was formerly employed by the pro-KMT China Post. Most of the piece is constructed in that same way. I especially love this line in that paragraph above:

….the only way to explain Taiwan’s policy of political provocation and military capitulation is a belief in a U.S. security commitment.

Yep. That’s right. It has nothing to do with misunderstandings by analysts like Carpenter and Logan, domestic politics, and so on. It can only be that and can’t be anything else.

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Asia] [Bush] [Chen Shui-bian] [Democracy] [DPP] [KMT] [Taiwan Independence] [Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)] [US Foreign Policy] [Washington Post]

Related Posts