Author: Jack McHenry
Last week the Obama administration made the decision not to sell advanced F-16 fighter aircraft to Taiwan. According to the New York Times, this decision was made much to the chagrin of legislators on both sides of the aisle, but to Republicans in particular. Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas was quoted on Friday, Sept. 16, saying, “Today’s capitulation to Communist China by the Obama administration marks a sad day in American foreign policy, and it represents a slap in the face to a strong ally and longtime friend.” Since the Communist victory in 1949, China and Taiwan have harbored great enmity for one another, while Taiwan faces the constant threat of invasion by China. At a glance, the Obama administration’s decision could appear to be just that: the denial of assistance to a long-time democratic ally. However, upon further examination, it becomes clear that the United States under the Obama administration has provided substantial aid to Taiwan, and the criticism is largely nonsensical and partisan.
It is important to note that the U.S. has continued to provide military support to Taiwan despite the uproar over the decision not to sell F-16s. In January 2010, the U.S. sold $6.4 billion worth of weapons, military vehicles and technology to Taiwan as part of the U.S. commitment to supporting the democratic island off the coast of China. Any claim that this assistance is insignificant or “a slap in the face” to Taiwan fails to take that massive funding commitment into account. Despite the partisan nature of this debate in the U.S., when George W. Bush was faced with the decision whether or not to assist in upgrading Taiwan’s aircraft, he made the same decision that President Obama made just last week: no new jets. The consistency across presidential administrations indicates that American policy with respect to military aid for Taiwan has not changed with President’s Obama’s administration.
Much of the domestic criticism of President Obama’s decision is tied to pork barrel, self-interested politics. According to the New York Times, two legislators, Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Senator John Menendez, D-New Jersey, have begun work on a law that would require the U.S. to provide Taiwan with sufficient arms to defend itself, whatever that may mean. The senators who began work on the Taiwan arms legislation both have a vested interest in the continued manufacture of F-16s, as their states are home to companies that manufacture the aircraft. Although Taiwan has long been an ally of the United States, it seems that most of the critics of President Obama’s decisions are more interested in bringing home the bacon for their states than assisting Taiwan.
There is nothing wrong with looking out for the interests and well-being of constituents, but it is unacceptable when this kind of shortsighted pork-barrel thinking works its way into the debate over what is important for U.S. foreign policy. Criticism based on partisan allegiances appears even more shortsighted. The trend in politics today seems to be toward overly-politicized and under-analyzed criticism of important policy decisions. A senator from Texas does not need to criticize this recent decision on the basis of clinging to the simplistic notion of supporting democratic Taiwan in the face of communist China, when in reality, the Obama administration is still providing significant support to Taiwan. Going forward, when faced with issues that truly matter in international politics, politicians should take the time to act based on diplomacy and what is in the best interest of the country, not the party line- or worse, their wallets.
Jack McHenry is a senior DWA major. He can be reached at jmchenry@oxy.edu
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
