My mind changes by the day as to whether Trump is more likely to start a war in Taiwan by siding too aggressively with the pro-independence movement—or by siding too aggressively with the PRC! Either way, however, he seems to be intent on upsetting the current modus vivendi that—however imperfect it may be—has allowed the island to exist and flourish for decades in a state of relative autonomy, peace, and democratic freedom—without inviting outright conflict with the much larger and more powerful Orwellian superstate on the mainland.
On the one hand, Trump's team has made a number of gestures that read to the PRC regime as escalatory. Most notably, Trump's State Department recently removed language from its website about not supporting Taiwanese independence—taking a step closer toward abandoning the "One China" policy that was key to normalizing relations with the PRC a half-century ago. (I wouldn't defend "One China" on the grounds of logic or morality, by the way—but it has certainly helped to keep the peace; and given the likely toll of an outright war for Taiwan, that is nothing to sneer at.)
On the other hand, though, Trump has personally derided Taiwan. He has signaled in the past that he would not bother to defend the island, in the event the PRC tried to invade and destroy its political autonomy (the same way they did in Hong Kong, in violation of their own prior agreements). Most recently, Trump has talked about imposing ruinous tariffs on Taiwan's semiconductor industry, which has been a crucial bargaining chip to preserving the island's de facto independence (this being merely the latest of Trump's many unprovoked threats against loyal U.S. friends and allies).
So—is Trump going to sell out Taiwan and practically send a personalized invitation to the People's Liberation Army to surround the island and start shelling it? Or, is he going to do the exact opposite, and stir the pot with the PRC leadership so much that the conflict escalates to the point of an outright invasion? "O which one? is it each one?" (to borrow a phrase from G.M. Hopkins). These seem like polar opposite courses of action—but either one would lead to the same tragic outcome: a war that could end the peace and freedom of one of the world's most decent and unoffending liberal democracies.
Of course, many people will argue that such a war has been inevitable all along. U.S. commentators still point to the supposed "Thucydides trap," according to which the U.S. and China are destined to eventually come to blows, simply because the latter is a rising power that threatens our hegemony. According to this theory, then, Trump is doing nothing so unusual. Even if his actions risk bringing on war in Taiwan—in one way or the other—people of this school of thought will say that he is merely obeying the forces of fate. As a character puts it in Jean Giraudoux's Tiger at the Gates:
"[W]hen destiny has brought up two nations, as for years it has brought up yours and mine, to a future of similar invention and authority, and given to each a different scale of values, the universe knows that destiny wasn't preparing alternative ways for civilization to flower. It was contriving the dance of death[.]" (Fry trans.) This is the essence of the "Thucydides Trap" argument: history has been paving the way for China and the U.S. to go to war. We cannot avoid it. The two countries have been "brought up" to wield too similar a share of power, but with too different a scale of political values to get along.
But the whole point of Giraudoux's play is that—actually—such notions of destiny are false. He shows how the warring parties in the Trojan War are in fact able to negotiate a settlement. Hector and Ulysses are able to avert bloodshed. As the play's original French title puts it: "The Trojan War Will Not Take Place" after all. The curtain begins to descend at this point—the agreement having been forged; the crisis averted. And it is only then that another character—Demokos—rushes out to invent a pretext to renew the conflict. He invents a false slander against the Greeks to ensure the war will happen after all.
Giraudoux's point—then—is that it's not actually "fate" or "history" or "destiny" that inevitably causes war between two powers. It is—rather—the malicious self-interest of specific people who stand to benefit from the war, and who therefore contrive to bring it about. The Trojan war was not inevitable—but it happens anyways, because certain selfish people make it happen.
What we have on our hands, then, is not so much a "Thucydides trap"—as a "Demokos trap."
The U.S. and the PRC are not destined for war. In reality, there is no inherent reason why the current modus vivendi could not continue indefinitely. We could simply continue to pay homage to the convenient fiction of the "One China" policy, while preserving a de facto alliance with Taiwan and continuing to buy the semiconductors that they make so well and that have played such a crucial role in guaranteeing their freedom from invasion. We could, that is to say, simply prolong the status quo. If anything stops us from doing so—it won't be "destiny" or "fate" or "history"—but deliberate human action.
So, don't be fooled. If something comes along and bulldozes the status quo—it won't be because the voice of "destiny" has finally spoken. It will be because the voice of Demokos spoke. It will be because Trump and his goons, or Xi and his goons, or both, decided that their crass self-interest was better served by a war. We aren't about to wander into a Thucydides trap, merely because both China and the U.S. are powerful countries. But—we may be much closer than we think, thanks to the current bullying and power-hungry leadership of both nations—to walking straight into the "Demokos trap."
No comments:
Post a Comment