Taiwan Crisis: China’s Goals and Complex Role of US

When you look at the map, Taiwan, that small island country right next to China, has become one of the most dangerous tension points in the world in recent years. On one side, China, which is on its way to becoming a global superpower and sees Taiwan as its “rebel province”; on the other, the USA, the world’s largest military and economic power, trying to maintain the status quo in the region; and right in the middle, the 23 million people who want to determine their own democratic future…

The tension between the three, known as the Taiwan Crisis, resembles a chess game, and each move has the potential to have consequences that could affect the entire world.

The roots of the crisis began in 1949, when the Chinese Communist Party seized power in mainland China following the Chinese Civil War. The leaders of the defeated Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) retreated to Taiwan and established an independent government there. Since then, China has viewed Taiwan as a separatist province, while a significant portion of the Taiwanese people define themselves as part of an independent nation. This historical division creates the potential for conflict that still remains heated today.

In this article, we will discuss this extremely sensitive and complex issue in the most understandable way, far from conspiracy theories and fanfare. How did it all start, what do the parties want, and what exactly is the US’s role in this game? Let’s decipher this global chess game together.

Historical Roots of the Taiwan Crisis and the “One China”

To understand the Taiwan crisis, we need to go back in time to 1949. That year, the civil war that had been going on for years in China ended with the victory of the Communists led by Mao Zedong. While the Communists established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing, the Nationalist government (Kuomintang), which was the loser of the civil war, fled to the island of Taiwan with its leader Chiang Kai-shek. In other words, the problem is actually the legacy of an unfinished civil war.

The interesting thing is that, at the beginning, both the Communist government in Beijing and the Nationalist government that fled to Taiwan claimed that it was the “sole legitimate government of all of China.” In other words, there was not a claim of “two separate countries” but a fight about “there is only one China and I am its true owner.” For years, the Western world, especially the USA, recognized the government in Taiwan as the “real China” and they sat in China’s seat at the United Nations.

However, by the 1970s, the balances in world politics changed. The US decided to approach Communist China as a counterweight to the Soviet Union in the Cold War. As a result of this strategic change, in 1979 the US shifted its diplomatic recognition from Taipei (the capital of Taiwan) to Beijing. This created a domino effect, and almost the entire world began to recognize the People’s Republic of China in Beijing as the “sole legitimate China“. Taiwan was left diplomatically alone.

The One China Policy and the US

It was at this point that the famous concept at the heart of the Taiwan crisis emerged: the “One China Policy.” This policy is, in its simplest form, a formal acceptance or at least “respect” of Beijing’s position that “there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China.” In other words, if a country wants to establish official diplomatic relations with China today, it must sever its official relations with Taiwan.

However, the US situation is a bit more complicated. The US does not apply China’s “One China Principle,” but rather its own interpretation of the “One China Policy.” This policy does not “accept” Beijing’s position, but merely “notes” (acknowledges). This small but crucial play on words gives the US the flexibility to maintain strong, if unofficial, relations with Taiwan (especially military and trade) and to argue that the island’s fate should be resolved peacefully. It is in this area of ​​diplomatic uncertainty that all the tensions occur.

Dragon, Eagle and Island: Positions of the Parties

In order for Taiwan to maintain its current status, we need to know clearly the three main actors: China (Dragon), the US (Eagle), and Taiwan (Island). Each has its own goals, fears, and red lines that it will never compromise on.

• China’s (Dragon) Position: For Beijing, the Taiwan crisis is a matter of “national honor” and “territorial integrity.” Taiwan is a “rebellious province” that was lost in a civil war but must eventually return to the motherland. The most important part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s vision of the “Great Revival of the Chinese Nation” is Taiwan’s unification. Although Beijing says that peaceful unification is preferable, it always keeps the option of “using force if necessary” on the table. Taiwan’s declaration of independence is an act of war for China.
• Taiwan’s (Island) Position: Taiwan has transformed from the military dictatorship of Chiang Kai-shek into one of the most vibrant and progressive democracies in Asia today. The new generations on the island see themselves as “Taiwanese” rather than “Chinese”. Their status is clear: Taiwan is a de facto independent country with its own government, army, currency and democratic system. Their greatest desire is to be able to maintain their democratic way of life without threats from Beijing. Being forcibly unified by China is their worst nightmare. Its also crucial for te Taiwan crisis.

Supply Chains and the Chip World!

In the midst of this Taiwan crisis and political tension lies the world’s most critical economic trump card: semiconductors or chips! Taiwanese company TSMC alone produces more than 90% of the world’s most advanced chips. Everything from smartphones to cars, military systems to artificial intelligence depends on these chips. A war in Taiwan could completely collapse this chip supply chain, leading to a global economic disaster. This is Taiwan’s greatest security, the “silicon shield.”

The red lines are quite clear. For China, the red line is Taiwan officially declaring independence. For Taiwan, the red line is the forcible elimination of their democratic system and sovereignty. For the US, the red line is the unilateral and military change of the status quo in the region. All parties are performing a dangerous dance around these red lines.

Chips to Military Tools: US and “Strategic Uncertainty”

The concept that best summarizes the US role in the Taiwan crisis is “Strategic Ambiguity.” This is a decades-long policy that simply means that the US deliberately leaves it unclear whether it will militarily defend the island if China attacks Taiwan. In other words, it does not say “I will definitely come if you attack,” nor does it say “I will definitely not come.”

This uncertainty has a dual purpose. First, to deter China: Beijing does not want to risk facing the world’s largest military force in the event of an invasion. Even the possibility of US intervention makes it difficult to decide to attack. Second, to restrain Taiwan: If the US were to guarantee that it would “protect you no matter what,” this could encourage some politicians in Taiwan to officially declare independence. Since this would be considered a definite cause for war by China, the US does not want to leave this door open.

One of the most important tools the US uses to support this policy is arms sales. Under the “Taiwan Relations Act,” the U.S. is obligated to provide Taiwan with defensive weapons (F-16 fighter jets, missiles, defense systems, etc.) necessary for its self-defense. These arms sales increase Taiwan’s resistance to a potential invasion, but are harshly condemned by Beijing each time.

Diplomacy, Taiwan Crisis and Strategy!

Another important tool is military presence and diplomatic signals for Taiwan crisis. The regular passage of warships by the US Navy through the Taiwan Strait is a show of force that demonstrates its presence in the region and its commitment to “freedom of navigation.” In addition, visits by high-level US politicians (speakers of the House, ministers, etc.) to Taiwan are also strong diplomatic signals of support for the island’s democracy. However, these signals are seen as “provocations” by Beijing and usually result in China conducting major military exercises around Taiwan.

In recent years, there has been a great debate in Washington about whether Trump’s policy of “Strategic Uncertainty” is no longer working. Some experts argue that China’s military power has increased so much that this uncertainty is no longer enough to deter Beijing. According to them, the US should change its policy to “Strategic Clarity” and openly declare that it will defend Taiwan against China. Others believe that such a step would directly provoke China into a war and would have disastrous results. This discussion shows how dynamic and on a knife-edge the crisis is.

What makes the Taiwan crisis even more complicated are those tiny chips that hold the world’s technological future. Therefore, a crisis in Taiwan would not only mean a regional war, but a global economic and political earthquake that would shake the entire world. A small miscalculation by any of the parties could have unpredictable consequences.

In short, the Taiwan Crisis and the waters in the Strait are an extremely sensitive area where not only ships but also major powers that will determine the future of the 21st century are navigating. Therefore, understanding this tension that the world is watching with bated breath is actually understanding the world we live in.