Clash over whether conservatives will protect Taiwan

Orlando, Florida — Influential and conservative thinkers have expressed fierce disagreement over whether the United States should protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. National Conservatism Conference In Orlando on October 31st.

Former Trump National Security Communications Officer and lecturer at Hillsdale College, Michael Anton, claimed that China would conquer Taiwan, whether or not it was under the control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He likened Taiwan’s fate when the People’s Republic of China (ROC) was forced to withdraw to Taiwan during the Chinese civil war in the late 1940s, when China lost Hong Kong to the British Empire in 1842. rice field.

Taiwan has been dominated by the ROC since Japan’s surrender in 1945 during World War II, but has been under Japanese control since 1895, when China’s Qing Empire was defeated by the Sino-Japanese War. It has been previously controlled by Qing since 1683.

The United Kingdom signed a New Territories lease in Hong Kong from 1898 to 99. When Britain tried to negotiate an extension of the lease in the late 1970s, Beijing refused and Hong Kong returned to China in 1997.

“This was a thorn on the Chinese side for 150 years, not as a Chinese civilization, not as a single government, but as a communist government,” Anton argued.

Anton further argued that if China succeeded in sinking a single US aircraft carrier, it would cost $ 12 to $ 14 billion and cost more lives than 9/11.

“Remember what psychological shock and hurt it caused to the country,” he added.

Defense expert Michael Pillsbury, who served the George HW Bush administration, opposed Anton.

Pillsbury argued that China was weakened by “controversy, debate and power struggles at the top,” and said the top leaders of the Chinese Communist Party had a history of killing each other.

Pillsbury further justified Anton’s highly public debate at major conferences as “American deception” by “delusional groups” in CCP leadership, further justifying their own investment in nuclear weapons. He said.

“There is a long history of conservatism that has risen for the free,” said Pillsbury, who filed a proceeding against Jimmy Carter in 1979 for invalidating the defense treaty in favor of Taiwan and China. He pointed out the example of Barry Goldwater.

“I have to go back to Washington and say.” Yes, I went to a conservative conference. Many on the panel said, “We will surrender Taiwan and we do not want to be involved in the war with China.” It’s appeasement. Michael Anton, in my humble opinion, needs to clarify his remarks, “Pillsbury added.

In response, Anton repeated his hypothesis about the loss of aircraft carriers:

“If they are unable to sink the aircraft carrier and the only way to prevent the invasion of Taiwan is to deploy a foreign-deployed aircraft carrier. [Yokosuka] And maybe send another one or two out there, which, as far as I know, is the only way the United States can effectively protect the island if China decides to do it-and they are these Sink one of $ 12 to $ 14 A billion giants with 6,500 men on board. What will happen to the US response at that time? “

“Well, we can turn to you and say,’I will surrender,'” Pillsbury replied.

Anton further argued that China may be prepared to deploy nuclear weapons in American cities in the event of a dispute with Taiwan. According to Anton, the loss of a single American city is “the greatest shock and psychological shock the United States has ever experienced.”

Pillsbury replied that the Japanese made similar calculations about the American spirit when they attacked Pearl Harbor.

“They thought the attack on Pearl Harbor would cause the surrender syndrome you’re talking about,” he said.

In the event of the loss of a city with nuclear weapons, Pillsbury argued: They don’t know that. “

Two other panelists, David Goldman of Asia Times Holdings and Curt Mills of American Conservative, looked at each of them.

“The ideal situation is to maintain the status quo as much as possible,” Goldman said, arguing that the United States should maintain “strategic ambiguity.”

“I don’t care about China in the end. I care about the United States,” he added.

Mills argued that China’s invasion of Taiwan was widely recorded in the video, making it difficult to ignore China’s dominance.

Mills added that many in the West “deeply agree” that China as a non-European power is to emerge.

“I think it’s pretty dangerous,” he said.

Nathan Worcester


Nathan Worcester is an environmental reporter for The Epoch Times.

Posted on