Taiwan’s Fall to CCP Would Devastate America’s Asian Alliance Structure

We have argued that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is determined to conquer Taiwan, and that the U.S. must deter this outcome for our own national survival. While the CCP’s intent has been constant since 1949, Xi Jinping now has the capability to execute a military invasion of the island. As early as this Autumn, we could see Xi and the CCP attempt strong coercive measures, like a blockade of the island, or more probably an invasion. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has not provided Taiwan with the necessary conventional capabilities to defeat a blockade or an invasion.

Biden’s inaction is damaging to U.S. national security interests because Taiwan is strategic to the United States’ national security for four reasons.

The first is economic; Taiwan is a vibrant and wealthy economy—and a superpower in computer chip production. Any damage to its factories, including their destruction, or conquest by China, will reverberate for many years throughout the U.S. and global economies. There may come a day when the U.S. is no longer dependent upon Taiwanese chips, but that day is not today, and will not be for many years.

Second, Taiwan occupies a key geopolitical real estate position that both Beijing and Washington recognize. For China, Taiwan is the cork in the bottle of the first island chain, and so prevents the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and Air Force (PLAAF) from easily accessing the entirety of the Pacific Ocean. Physical control of Taiwan further expands the PRC’s power, from defending its ports from mining and to the sustaining of its Sea Line of Communication from the East and South China Seas.

Third, in the realm of political warfare, Taiwan is a strong democracy. Its very existence demonstrates what the PRC might have been had the Chinse Communist Party (CCPP) not come to power. The people and government of Taiwan are a daily reminder of this reality and why the CCP is an illegitimate regime.

Fourth, Taiwan is a symbol of U.S. credibility to resist Chinese aggression and thus to sustain its viability. Standing with Taiwan, provides a tangible indication that the U.S. will resist the PRC’s expansionism and will do so with substantial investment from U.S. and allied forces. Every year as both Republican and Democrat administrations maintain arms sales to Taiwan, it reminds Beijing, and the rest of the region, that no matter how contentious domestic U.S. politics become, there is a core American polity who understand the consequential importance of standing firm against the predatory actions of the PRC.

Were Taiwan to be conquered by the PRC, the humanitarian consequences for the Taiwanese people would be horrific as their democracy would be lost—falling under the yoke of the CCP. The CCP would no doubt tout that the “Beijing Consensus”—a euphemism for tyranny—is on the march, and that the “Washington Consensus”—democracy—is receding on the tide of history. In sum, if Taiwan were to fall under the control of the PRC, U.S. strategic national interests would suffer a tremendous blow.

As such, before the PRC attacks it is important to identify how U.S. interests would be affected if Taiwan were to fall. In essence, were Taiwan to fall, U.S. national security would be greatly harmed for the following reasons.

First, the acquisition of Taiwan’s dynamic population of almost 24 million and $800 billion economy would be a great fillip to the PRC’s perceived comprehensive national power and a relative, and significant, loss for the U.S.

Second, even more significantly, the loss of Taiwan’s chip production would be a major, even mortal, blow to many firms and a colossal shock to the U.S. economy. The next largest chip maker, South Korea’s Samsung, as well as other firms like Intel would not be able to address the shortfall. Having conquered Taiwan, South Korea would essentially be surrounded and under great pressure from the PRC, North Korea, and Russia. That pressure would push Seoul to abandon its alliance with the U.S. and to drift into the PRC’s orbit. This would impact all levers of national power, most concerning would be the economic pressure on companies like Samsung that will be coerced to end cooperation and sales with the West in favor of the PRC.

Third, the PRC’s invasion and occupation of Taiwan would mean Japan would be the only opening to the west for Seoul. In an environment where South Korea’s strategic choices will be informed by significant threats to its economy this would be catastrophic for Seoul’s survival. This is particularly likely if South Korea were to remain non-nuclear. Under such circumstances, it is unknown if Seoul would acquire nuclear weapons, rather than bandwagon with Beijing. The recent tri-lateral summit in Washington between Seoul, Tokyo and the U.S. is an encouraging sign—now in peace time—but in a strategic environment where the PRC occupies Taiwan this necessity may dramatically change.

Fourth, other U.S. allies, including Japan and the Philippines would fall under the shadow of an emboldened PRC. Japan would confront difficult choices, including immediate danger to the Senkaku islands. While it is hoped Tokyo would resist the PRC, including through nuclear proliferation, to keep its alliance with the U.S., such an assurance cannot be counted on if America would fail to step forward and defend Taiwan from an invasion by the PLA. For the Philippines, everything would depend upon the U.S.’s willingness to provide a credible extended deterrent given the PRC’s expansion would not stop at Taiwan. Having been betrayed by the Obama administration in 2012 at Scarborough Shoal, and today under tremendous pressure at Second Thomas Shoal, the Philippines is already in the front lines of the PRC’s expansion. The fall of Taiwan will require a major U.S. military presence in the Philippines if Manila is to stand against Beijing. Absent a strong U.S. presence, the pressure for Manila to bandwagon with Beijing would be irresistible. Were Manila to yield, Beijing would secure the eastern flank of South China Sea and thus have de facto control of it.

Fifth, two of America’s treaty allies would also be impacted by the PRC’s successful invasion of Taiwan, Australia and the Kingdom of Thailand. While the Australians have been steadfast partners in the fight against the PRC, the fall of Taiwan would essentially allow the PRC to extend a “bar of steel”—the PLA—from the eastern shores of Taiwan to the PRC’s recent positions of influence in the Solomon Islands and out to Kiribati, the sight of the WWII fight at Tarawa. This Oceanic Sea Line of Communication would effectively cut Australia, and New Zealand, off from the U.S. and the rest of the free world. Likewise, the Kingdom of Thailand, with whom the U.S. has had the longest alliance relationship in Asia, would be under even more pressure to go along with Beijing’s strategic design for Southeast Asia. In essence, the fall of Taiwan would be the equivalent of a metaphorical aneurysm for America’s alliance structure in Asia.

Finally, a CCP-occupied Taiwan would allow the PRC’s military to have a new military base from which it has direct access to the Pacific for the PLAN and PLAAF to project power against U.S. forces in South Korea, Japan, those in the Australia, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, as well as those in Guam, Hawaii, Alaska and even in the U.S. homeland.

Accordingly, from the economic to military domains there should be no doubt that the defense of Taiwan is a vital national security interest to the United States and should be pursued by the U.S. government with the vigor and immediacy given the current environment as the PLA daily increases its noose around Taiwan. Taiwan is in immediate danger, which must be addressed now.

James Fanell is a government fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, a retired captain in the U.S. Navy and a former director of intelligence and information operations for the U.S. Pacific Fleet.  Bradley A. Thayer is Director of China Policy at the Center for Security Policy.  He is the coauthor with Lianchao Han of Understanding the China Threat. 


Get the news corporate media won't tell you.

Get caught up on today's must read stores!

By submitting your information, you agree to receive exclusive AG+ content, including special promotions, and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. By providing your phone number and checking the box to opt in, you are consenting to receive recurring SMS/MMS messages, including automated texts, to that number from my short code. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. SMS opt-in will not be sold, rented, or shared.

About James E. Fanell and Bradley A. Thayer

James Fanell is a government fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, a retired captain in the U.S. Navy and a former director of intelligence and information operations for the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Bradley A. Thayer is a Founding Member of the Committee on Present Danger China and the coauthor with Lianchao Han of Understanding the China Threat.

Photo: Ceng Shou Yi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Notable Replies

  1. I don’t exactly disagree with this article but I see three problems:

    1. As far as war materiel, the US has thrown most of it’s chips in the so-called Ukraine and doesn’t have much left;

    2. Our armed forces suck; and

    3. Our alleged president has been bought by Beijing.

  2. I’m going to respond point by point cuz this is basically desperate lying by Neo-Cons who cannot face how badly their policies have screwed us, so instead they double down. It’s bizarre but increasingly common from folks who pretend to be conservative but are actually globalist freaks who want to control the world.

    1. Chips and Taiwan - We are building 5 semi plants in the U.S. as I type this. While AZ is throwing some union blocks at them, this will get all get ironed out. These foundries will be completed in two years, some are already running partial production lines. And there are more on the way. There are also advanced semi-foundries in other nations that can pick up some of the slack. The statement that it will be “many years” before we can produce chips independent of Taiwan is an ignorant lie. We’d see price spikes for a year or two, yawn, just like with any shortage of a product. They are LYING about this. They are counting on you not knowing about the new foundries being built.

    2. Taiwan only matters as the “cork in the bottle” if we seek to dominate Asia and control China. Note these rabid hacks don’t even bother to lay out what national interest we have in dominating Asia, at all. It’s as though that’s a given. Even worse? We’ve spent the past 45 years building China with our tech, knowledge and capital into a world power. We abandoned Taiwan in 1980, canceled our mutual defense treaty and derecognized them. And of course it’s in China’s interest to keep trade routes open as they are not a self-sufficient nation in terms of energy and other resources, vs say Russia which is. This entire point is fatuous nonsense.

    3. Almost half of the Taiwanese people want to re-unite with China without a war, lol. The idea that Taiwan’s role is to be our billboard for Democracy in China can only be said by an arrogant, out of touch, Western elitist hack. Nations do not run themselves to act as advertisements for power-mad Westerners.

    4. Taiwan is not a symbol of resistance. Rather, it’s a symbol of American cowardice and avaricious greed. We dumped them in 1980, you idiots. Our ‘strategic ambiguity’ is a way of pretending we care when we don’t. And don’t kid yourselves, if China attacks, we won’t be able to hold them off for more than a week.

    As for the humanitarian issues of the Taiwanese people, let me be clear: As a matter of U.S. national interest, I don’t care. We are not the humanitarian police. Let these guys file a case in the Hague should that come to pass. But please don’t suggest the nation should send young men to die there and that we should waste a trillion or two losing a war against China.

    The last bit is quite pathetic. Yes, once we acknowledge the reality that we can’t control China or Asia, those nations will seek new alliances and arrangements. I’m not sure how whether South Korea decides it wants nukes or not matters to U.S. national interests, and of course the authors don’t really explain it either.

    Last. I’ve seen the DCS simulations of various battle scenarios over Taiwan and all over Asia. And do you know what most Americans seem to not have internalized? China has peer weapons systems/platforms in almost very category of plane, radar, missile, launchers, ships, comms, etc. etc. etc. We would not be fighting Afgani goat herders. We’d lose at least 25k men and hundreds of planes and ships in the first week. God help us if they get one of our aircraft carriers, which is entirely possible.

    We still out perform them, and can ‘win’ those battles but the attrition on our side is utterly unsustainable. And we run out of bombs and cruise missiles in a couple weeks at the pace we’d have to engage at in this conflict. What these bloody fools haven’t offered is this: Would they send their son or daughter off to fight that losing war so these guys can still pretend their ‘Post WWII Rules Based Western Liberal Order’ is real? How long to we have to tolerate this kind of pretentious and dishonest bloviating from our own side?

    Last. I listen to Fanell and Thayer regularly. They are brilliant but have the wrong strategic POV. I find this is true of almost every person I know who’s a veteran. They have been seriously brainwashed about China and Russia, it’s sad to see. Like how on earth could they think going to war with China is doable for us, or a good idea? Trump needs to clean house in DoD and State as well and get some folks who aren’t bought into the failed status quo.

  3. You just had to go there, didn’t you? /sarc

Continue the discussion at community.amgreatness.com


Avatar for War_for_the_West Avatar for Maximus-Cassius Avatar for Yamazaki_Mei Avatar for system