"Are You a CEO, Director, or Founder interested in a Feature Interview?"
All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge
If the United States decides to defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression, it may have to do so alone.
Several key US allies are unlikely to send in troops to rescue Taiwan because they lack the military capabilities or don’t want to risk all-out war with an increasingly powerful China, a new report says. report By RAND Corp.
Aid for Japan, Australia, the UK and Canada “will be limited to diplomatic support for Taiwan and recognition of US sanctions against China,” concluded the US think tank RAND Corporation. Experts from four countries were surveyed.If this proves correct, the military response to Chinese aggression would be limited to US forces.
“Respondents believe that the US would receive logistical and material support from other countries, but would have to respond to a Chinese invasion with its own military alone,” Rafik Dossani, a senior economist at RAND Corporation and co-author of the survey, told Business Insider. However, Japan and Australia were more supportive of sending their navies to support a US-led effort to break China’s blockade of Taiwan.
For example, it is not surprising that Canada is unable or unwilling to rush to the defence of Taiwan, but the issue is more complicated for Japan, whose security would be seriously affected by a Chinese occupation of Taiwan.
“Despite Japan’s military power, regional engagement, and U.S. support, Japan’s pacifism (national and constitutional) and fear of a retaliatory attack by China would likely limit any Japanese military assistance to Taiwan to logistics and supply supplies,” the RAND Corporation said. “Japanese support for a U.S.-led military response would likely be limited to logistics and supply supplies.”
The RAND study, sponsored by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, aimed to explore how a mid-sized U.S. ally could deter or mediate a conflict between China and Taiwan. Taiwan is a democratic island, but China’s Communist Party leaders consider it a separatist province. The United States relies heavily on regional allies such as South Korea and Japan for bases, but the prospect of having to fight a possibly larger Chinese military without those countries’ ships and soldiers could weaken U.S. deterrence.
The researchers classified Japan, Australia, the UK and Canada as “mid-powers,” which RAND defines as “a country that is not small, but lacks the size and influence to significantly disrupt the world order.” The study excluded countries that already face the risk of direct conflict with China, the US or their respective allies. India and South Korea were also excluded because “they have declared that they will not act as a middleman in cross-strait disputes.”
The RAND Corporation surveyed 49 diplomats, defense officials, policy analysts, business executives, journalists and lawmakers from the four countries, and a range of responses revealed a “surprisingly common” view on a war between China and Taiwan.
Particularly striking is the pessimistic self-image: British experts, for example, feel that the UK has little interest in defending Taiwan militarily, due to its trade dependence on China, its distance from Taiwan and its weak military.
The four U.S. allies also don’t believe China fears them enough to refrain from attacking Taiwan. “Respondents believe China views these four middle powers as too militarily weak to stand up to China on its own and as peripheral to the U.S.-led coalition,” the report said.
Meanwhile, key U.S. allies do not share U.S. concerns that China’s massive military buildup and President Xi Jinping’s stated determination to “reunify” Taiwan with China are steps toward war and may be nationalistic posturing. “According to respondents, China’s primary goal is to legitimize its current domestic political system (i.e., the rule of the Chinese Communist Party),” the report states. “To achieve this goal, China must be seen domestically as a great power, a preeminent player in Asia, and a country capable of achieving high economic growth. An invasion of Taiwan would jeopardize such perceptions and would be seen as an unacceptable risk compared to the status quo.”
Taiwan’s military is by no means small, with some 200,000 active-duty soldiers, anti-ship missiles and mines, and soon F-16 fighter jets and submarines. But this is a tiny fraction of China’s military power, and Taiwan would need outside help to repel an invasion or break a blockade. The United States would provide most of this aid, but contributions from allies would be essential, as would free use of bases in Japan and Australia.
To U.S. hardliners already exasperated that some NATO allies are not investing enough in European defense, the allies’ reluctance may smack of cowardice and shift the burden of Pacific security onto the U.S. But it may also reflect military and geographic realities: Canada’s small military can only muster a token force to defend Taiwan; Britain’s shrinking military, already burdened with European missions, would struggle to send even a small carrier task force to the South China Sea, 6,000 miles away.
Australia is a Pacific nation that has diesel-electric submarines and F-35 stealth fighter jets, but still lacks the capability to plan and carry out military operations in Taiwan, 5,000 miles away.
But the biggest question mark is Japan. Okinawa is about 500 miles from Taiwan, Japan has a territorial dispute with China over several islands in the East China Sea, and Japan’s military is rated among the top 10 in the world. Moreover, Japanese territory and the U.S. military bases stationed there would be vital to U.S. efforts to counter China.
But if Japan, Australia, the UK and Canada are reluctant to confront China, there are actions they can take to support Taiwan. The RAND Corporation has recommended drawing up a joint plan for trade sanctions to deter China from attacking Taiwan. In addition, the four middle powers could act as intermediaries to prevent a war with Taiwan.
“Indeed, if tensions between the great powers escalate, only a middle power may be able to act as a mediator in such a conflict,” the study noted, “but as of the time of writing, no middle power has sufficient influence vis-Ã -vis either of the great powers to play such a role, even in coalition with other middle powers.”
This means that these middle powers will need to strengthen their military and other capabilities. “To build credibility with both great powers, the four middle powers will need to rebuild and strengthen their strategic autonomy, material strength, and engagement in the Asia-Pacific region.”
The study also implicitly raises the question of how much the United States can rely on its NATO allies for support outside Europe. NATO countries sent small forces during the Afghanistan war, but facing China is a different situation.
“NATO should take seriously the prospects of European middle powers whose adversaries would not want to be drawn into conflicts that do not directly threaten their national security,” Dossani said.
Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy and other publications. He holds a Master’s in Political Science from Rutgers University. twitter and LinkedIn.
"Elevate Your Brand with an Exclusive Feature Interview!"